U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

91–934 PDF 2014

S. HRG. 113–520 

THE ESCALATING INTERNATIONAL WILDLIFE 

TRAFFICKING CRISIS: ECOLOGICAL, ECONOMIC 

AND NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUES 

JOINT HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICAN AFFAIRS 

AND THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EAST ASIAN 

AND PACIFIC AFFAIRS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MAY 21, 2014 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/ 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey, Chairman

BARBARA BOXER, California 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire 

CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

CHRISTOPHER MURPHY, Connecticut 

TIM KAINE, Virginia 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

BOB CORKER, Tennessee 

JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho 

MARCO RUBIO, Florida 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

JOHN McCAIN, Arizona 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

DANIEL E. O’BRIEN, Staff Director

LESTER E. MUNSON III, Republican Staff Director

——————

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICAN AFFAIRS

CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware, Chairman

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

JOHN McCAIN, Arizona 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

——————

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EAST ASIAN AND PACIFIC AFFAIRS

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland, Chairman

CHRISTOPHER MURPHY, Connecticut 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

MARCO RUBIO, Florida 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

JOHN McCAIN, Arizona 

(II)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. Daniel M. Ashe, Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC ............................................................................................................. 10 

Prepared statement ...................................................................................... 11 

Brooke Darby, Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, U.S. Department of State, 

Washington, DC ................................................................................................... 23 

Prepared statement ...................................................................................... 24 

Hon. Judith G. Garber, Acting Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of 

Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC ................................................................... 5 

Prepared statement ...................................................................................... 7 

Hon. Eric G. Postel, Assistant Administrator for The Bureau of Economic 

Growth, Education, and Environment, U.S. Agency for International Development, Washington, DC ..................................................................................... 18 

Prepared statement ...................................................................................... 19 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

Responses Of Daniel M. Ashe to questions submitted by Senator Marco 

Rubio ..................................................................................................................... 44 

Statement submitted by the Wildlife Conservation Society ......................... 45 

Statement submitted by the Environment and Natural Resources Division, Department of Justice, Washington, DC ................................................... 48 

Statement submitted by Ginette Hemley, senior vice president, Wildlife 

Conservation, World Wildlife Fund, and Crawford Allan, senior director, 

Traffic .................................................................................................................... 52 

Statement submitted by Bas Huijbregts, head of policy, Illegal Wildlife 

Trade Campaign, Central Africa Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF) ........... 62 

(III)

(1) 

JOINT HEARING ON THE ESCALATING INTERNATIONAL WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING CRISIS: 

ECOLOGICAL, ECONOMIC, AND NATIONAL 

SECURITY ISSUES 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 21, 2014 

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICAN AFFAIRS, SUBCOMMITTEE ON EAST ASIAN AND PACIFIC AFFAIRS, COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittees met, pursuant to notice, at 2:35 p.m., in room 

SD–419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Christopher A. 

Coons and Benjamin L. Cardin (chairmen of the subcommittees) 

presiding. 

Present: Senators Coons, Cardin, and Flake. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM DELAWARE 

Senator COONS. Good afternoon. I would like to call to order this 

joint hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittees on African Affairs and on East Asian Affairs. 

Today, we will consider the far-reaching ecological, economic, and 

national security threats arising from the escalating global wildlife 

trafficking crisis. We will also examine the role of several key factors in fueling this crisis, including increased demand for illegal 

wildlife products in Asia, the involvement of illicit criminal networks and armed groups, and weak enforcement capacity in both 

source and demand countries in Africa and Asia. 

Finally, we will consider the scope and implementation path of 

the U.S. Government’s national strategy for combating wildlife 

trafficking, as well as other efforts to address this crisis. 

I would like to recognize one of the Senate’s strongest leaders on 

conservation issues and the chair of the East Asian Subcommittee, 

Senator Cardin, and my friend and partner on the Africa Subcommittee, Senator Flake. 

I would also like to welcome our four witnesses and thank you 

all for joining us today. I look forward to your insights and your 

testimony. 

Over the last decade, wildlife trafficking has grown into an international crisis. It is a multibillion-dollar industry driven by dangerous and sophisticated transnational criminal syndicates used by 

some terrorist groups to fund their operations. These poachers and 

2 

traffickers are organized, well-financed, heavily armed, and extremely dangerous. 

The scale at which poachers are operating is threatening the 

very survival of some of the world’s most iconic wildlife. Last year 

alone, roughly 35,000 elephants and 1,000 rhinos were killed in Africa. The loss of these wildlife populations, coupled with the security and stability threats of poachers and traffickers, is having a 

serious impact on the economic development of many African communities that rely on tourism for revenue, as well. 

This is an issue that should move us to act, for a wide range of 

reasons. It is a serious and complicated problem, but one in which 

the United States can play an important role in solving, in partnership with Asian and African countries. 

To facilitate the implementation of the administration’s national 

strategy, Congress, last year, provided dedicated funding to stop 

wildlife trafficking. In my view, Congress must continue to work 

with the administration and other partners to stem the tide 

against this escalating crisis. 

Senator Cardin and Senator Flake and I decided it was important to hold a joint subcommittee hearing, because the wildlife trafficking crisis is not constrained to one region but involves source, 

transit, and demand countries across the globe. The trade of ivory 

and rhino horn, sourced in Africa but fueled primarily by strong demand in Asia, today contributes to this ongoing challenge. We are 

interested in discussing everything that happens, from the poaching of wildlife to the purchasing of illegal animals and products, 

and everything in between. 

While the focus of this hearing is primarily on the trade of elephant ivory and rhino horn between Africa and Asia, as demonstrated by the examples on the table for us, this issue is much 

broader than that. Trafficking includes illegal trade in live wildlife, 

fish, seafood, trees, plants, and many other threatened species from 

across the globe. Dealing with this issue over the long run will require robust partnerships at every level—governments, NGOs, the 

private sector, and communities throughout Africa, Asia, and the 

world. 

I want to thank and recognize the very broad range of nongovernmental organizations that work tirelessly to conserve vulnerable ecosystems and to secure the economic, social, and cultural 

benefits of wildlife for future generations. You are the first line of 

defense in this fight against wildlife trafficking, and we are grateful for your input and thank you for your partnership as we strive 

together to address this issue. 

I now turn to my friend, Senator Cardin, chair of the East Asia 

Subcommittee, for his opening statement. 

Senator CARDIN. Why do we not let Senator Flake go. 

Senator COONS. I will now turn to Senator Flake for his opening 

statement. Thank you. 

Senator Flake. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF FLAKE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM ARIZONA 

Senator FLAKE. I would rather hear the witnesses, so I will not 

talk long, but I appreciate the chairman for calling this hearing. 

3 

This is something that, when we met last year, was in the top 

of our agenda, to get a handle on this. So, pleased that you are 

here before us today, and look forward to hearing the testimony. 

Senator COONS. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Cardin. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MARYLAND 

Senator CARDIN. First, let me thank Senator Coons for the suggestion to hold this joint hearing. I think this is the right thing to 

do. Senator Flake, thank you for your help. I also want to acknowledge Senator Rubio’s help and cooperation as the ranking Republican member of the Subcommittee on East Asia and Pacific. 

We recognize the importance of this subject matter, that it is 

very much fueling a lot of illegal activities, it is a big business and 

it is costing people their lives. This is an issue that is affecting the 

health of species diversity around the world, particularly in Africa. 

And we really need to do something about it. It is a multibilliondollar industry, as Chairman Coons has pointed out. And there are 

a lot of similarities as to what is happening with the trafficking of 

illegal wildlife and of the trafficking of illegal arms and drugs. 

There is a lot of similarity between the networks involved. 

The Convention on International Trade and Endangered Species 

reported that, in 2012, an estimated 22,000 elephants were slaughtered across Africa, and, according to U.S. Fish and Wildlife—I 

hope I am quoting these numbers correctly—approximately 2,800 

rhinos have been poached in South Africa since 2008. The chairman mentioned 1,000 in the last year. So, you see the numbers 

here are astronomical. And as I have already learned this morning, 

those rhino horns can get up to $60,000 per pound, I believe is the 

number that was just given to me. You can see that we are talking 

about a very lucrative field and one that creates great danger as 

well as affects our environment. 

But, as has been pointed out, yes, the primary target for the 

poaching is Africa, but it would not be possible unless there was 

a demand for the product. And the demand is in Asia. So, that is 

one of the reasons why we are having this joint hearing. I might 

tell you, there is also a demand in the United States. So, we have 

got to take care of our own business here at home, as well as dealing with the problems in Asia and Africa. 

There are well-known species that we have talked about, but 

there are also lizards and turtles and coral and hornbills—all of 

which are threatened due to illegal wildlife trafficking. So, it is not 

just the most visible species; there are some other species that are 

very much part of this illegal trafficking. 

I do want to point out that we have seen some progress. We often 

focus on the areas where the United States and other countries 

struggle to see eye to eye; however, this is an issue we can all get 

behind. We have seen enormous cooperation with our partners in 

the Asia-Pacific region to combat the illegal wildlife trafficking 

trade. Earlier this year, Vietnam’s President issued a directive to 

prioritize enforcement across his entire government to combat 

poaching and trafficking of African elephant ivory and rhino horns. 

That is good news, and we very much want to acknowledge when 

4 

the right steps are taken. And, according to the World Wildlife Federation, 65 million mobile phone subscribers in Vietnam are now 

receiving SMS text messages asking them to say ‘‘No’’ to rhino 

horns. Public knowledge and support, here, is a critical factor for 

us dealing with this issue. 

And, through the United States Agency for International Development-funded Asia Regional Response to Endangered Species 

Trafficking Program, Lao and Thai enforcement agents recently 

participated in an investigation training course at a major endangered species smuggling corridor. In late March, the authorities in 

Singapore seized about 1 ton of ivory from shipment containers en 

route from Africa to another Asian country. And at the 2013 Strategic and Economic Dialogue, the United States and China committed to cooperate on enforcement issues in an effort to end the 

supply and demand for such products. 

So, we are seeing an acknowledgment of the issue, progress being 

made, and a recognition that the effectiveness of our strategy will 

only work if we have a coordinated effort. I intend to be in Asia 

next week, and this is one of the issues that we will be talking 

about during my visit. 

And we look forward to hearing the witnesses tell us how we can 

use existing mechanisms and partnerships, as well as forging new 

efforts, in order to combat this significant problem. 

I am pleased with the administration’s aggressive National 

Strategy for Combating Wildlife Trafficking, that was released in 

February. I look forward to hearing from our panel on the plans 

to urgently implement and institutionalize this plan with our 

Asian-Pacific partners in the areas of enforcement, demand reduction, and partner-building to ensure long-term solutions to finally 

put an end to this damaging illicit practice. 

Mr. Chairman, I have certain requests for statements to be made 

part of the record, including the Wildlife Conservation Society, the 

World Wildlife Fund and Traffic. I thank them for their commitment and leadership on this issue, and I would enter these statements into the record and would like to enter into the record a 

statement from the Department of Justice, which plays an important role in prosecuting international wildlife trafficking crimes, as 

well as assisting and collaborating with enforcement partners in 

sourced transit and demand countries. 

Senator COONS. Without objection. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you, I appreciate that. 

Let me introduce our panel, if I might. 

We are pleased to have with us Ambassador Judith Garber, the 

Acting Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs at the Department of 

State. A career Foreign Service officer, she previously served as the 

Bureau’s Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary and as Ambassador 

to Latvia. 

She is joined by Daniel Ashe, the Director of the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. Prior to his appointment as Director, Mr. Ashe 

served as the Services Deputy Director for Policy, beginning in 

2009, where he provided strategic program direction and developed 

policy and guidance to support and promote program development 

and fulfill the service mission. 

5 

We are also very pleased to have The Honorable Eric Postel here, 

the Assistant Administrator for the Bureau of Economic Growth, 

Education, and Environment at the U.S. Agency for International 

Development. Mr. Postel has more than 25 years of private-sector 

experience working in emerging markets, including support for economic development in more than 45 developing countries. 

And the fourth member of our panel is Brooke Darby, Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of International Narcotics and 

Law at the Department of State. A career member of the Foreign 

Service, Ms. Darby has previously served as Chief of Staff to the 

Director General of the Foreign Service. 

I think we have an excellent panel. As is the practice of our committee, your full statements will be made part of the record. You 

may proceed as you wish, as long as you keep your comments 

somewhat within the allotted time. 

We will start with Ambassador Garber. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JUDITH G. GARBER, ACTING ASSISTANT 

SECRETARY FOR THE BUREAU OF OCEANS AND INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL AND SCIENTIFIC AFFAIRS, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Ambassador GARBER. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman 

Coons, Chairman Cardin, and Senator Flake. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to address the dramatic escalation in wildlife trafficking. 

With your permission, I would like to submit my written statement for the record. 

Senator COONS. Without objection. 

Ambassador GARBER. At the outset, let me extend my thanks to 

Congress for focusing strong attention and action on this pernicious, multifaceted crisis. If left unchecked, the exponential rise 

in killings of protected species, such as the iconic elephants and 

rhinos, will virtually wipe them out. If left unchecked, serious 

threats to conservation, local economies, security, and health will 

abound. 

President Obama’s July 2013 Executive order called for action, 

establishing an interagency task force and an advisory council. In 

February, the President released the National Strategy for Combating Wildlife Trafficking, which lays out a clear whole-of-government approach with three strategic priorities: strengthening domestic and global enforcement, reducing demand for illegally traded wildlife at home and abroad, and building international cooperation and public/private partnerships. 

For the last decade, the Department has partnered with other 

U.S. Federal agencies to aid in the establishment of five regional 

wildlife enforcement networks, with four additional networks underway. Looking ahead, our goal is to connect these into one global 

network for exchanging information, encouraging best practices, 

and promoting coordination. 

The United States sent a strong message that we will not tolerate illicit trade in ivory when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

performed an ivory crush in November that destroyed nearly 6 tons 

of seized or forfeited elephant ivory. Now other countries are following suit, including recent destructions in China, France, BelVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:47 Jan 06, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 2ND SESSION\2014 ISSUE TE
6 

gium, and Chad. Hong Kong began to destroy its stockpile of confiscated ivory just last week. 

We must also address demand. We intend to strengthen our efforts with international partners to communicate the negative impacts of the devastating trade. We hope that by raising awareness, 

consumers will reconsider harmful purchasing patterns. We have 

collaborated with the NGO community to sponsor public-service announcements, and we continue to work closely with the NGOs, as 

well as the private sector, including airlines, cruise ships, hotels, 

and the antiques sector. 

In honor of the first World Wildlife Day, I hosted a listening session with international NGOs on strategies to reduce demand for 

illegally traded wildlife, hearing about their international efforts, 

successes, and lessons learned, as well as the challenges inherent 

in measuring results. This work continues. 

We are strengthening our diplomacy, highlighting this issue at a 

number of multilateral foreign institutions, including the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, the African Union, and the U.N. General Assembly. We secured the inclusion of language to address wildlife trafficking in 

two Security Council resolutions, adopted in January, sanctioning 

armed African groups. We are working with China, raising wildlife 

trafficking at multiple levels. 

As part of the U.S. strategic economic dialogue, as the chairman 

pointed out, we are planning, for the second year in a row, a breakout session on this issue. We have asked that key topics include demand reduction, enactment of an ivory ban similar to the recent 

U.S. ban, and a commitment to join us in creating a global network 

of regional wildlife enforcement networks. 

Secretary Kerry raised wildlife trafficking during his visit to 

Vietnam last December. In February, as Chairman Cardin pointed 

out, the Prime Minister of Vietnam issued a directive instructing 

all ministries and local authorities to prioritize wildlife trafficking. 

And later this year, we are hosting, with Vietnam, a demand-reduction workshop under APEC auspices. 

As the current facilitator for the Congo Basin Forest Partnership, 

we devoted an extended session to wildlife this past November. We 

are continually encouraging African leaders to take concrete steps 

to protect their wildlife, to prevent trafficking, and to end the corruption that enables this crime to continue. 

In closing, let me say a few words about our efforts, moving forward. We will continue to promote commitments to conservation 

and to fighting the crime and corruption that fuels wildlife trafficking both within countries, across borders, among regions, and 

globally. The U.S. Government will further use diplomacy to secure 

commitments in international fora and at the highest levels of government. We will continue to strengthen effective implementation 

of international agreements, and work toward new measures. We 

will work with our sister agencies to ensure that our work is efficient and effective. 

Congress has shown great leadership on this issue, and we greatly appreciate your support to enhance our ability to combat wildlife 

trafficking. We look forward to working with you on this important 

issue, and I greatly appreciate the opportunity to appear before you 

7 

today and would be happy to answer any questions that you may 

have. 

[The prepared statement of Ambassador Garber follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF AMBASSADOR JUDITH G. GARBER

INTRODUCTION

Good afternoon Chairman Coons, Chairman Cardin, Ranking Member Flake, 

Ranking Member Rubio and other members of the African Affairs and East Asian 

and Pacific Affairs Subcommittees of the Committee on Foreign Relations. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today alongside my colleagues, Deputy 

Assistant Secretary Darby, Director Ashe, and Assistant Administrator Postel. 

We are here today because we share an understanding that the dramatic escalation in wildlife trafficking is something that affects us all. We know that the illicit 

trade in wildlife is decimating the populations of the world’s iconic species, particularly elephants and rhinos. The heavy toll that wildlife trafficking is taking is bringing some species to the brink of extinction. In 2012 alone an estimated 22,000 African elephants were killed for their ivory. Even starker is the decimation of forest 

elephant populations in Central Africa which have declined by approximately twothirds between 2002 and 2012. 

This illegal trade has devastating impacts: it threatens security, undermines the 

rule of law, fuels corruption, hinders sustainable economic development, and contributes to the spread of disease. 

In spite of these depressing facts the good news is that the international community is coming together in an unprecedented way to combat this pernicious trade. 

Shared understanding and commitment, along with the efforts of governments, the 

international community, intergovernmental organizations, NGOs, corporations, 

civil society, and individuals are critical for collective action to this evolving transnational threat. 

Secretary Kerry has long championed efforts to combat wildlife trafficking. As 

chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he held hearings on the subject. In his role as Secretary of State, he has called on leaders everywhere to step 

up and meet the challenge of rooting out the corruption, graft, and complicity in the 

system that threatens all of us. 

NATIONAL STRATEGY FOR COMBATING WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING

President Obama’s July 1, 2013, Executive order created the Presidential Task 

Force on Wildlife Trafficking and called for development of a ‘‘National Strategy for 

Combating Wildlife Trafficking.’’ The strategy was released on February 11, 2014, 

and reflects the analysis and contributions from around the Federal Government, 

led by the Task Force cochairs, the Departments of State, Interior, and Justice. The 

Executive order also established an Advisory Council comprising former U.S. Government officials, NGO representatives, the private sector, and law enforcement 

experts. The Council provided input into the development of the National Strategy 

and continues to provide valuable input and support as we focus on next steps for 

implementation. 

As President Obama directed, the National Strategy describes a ‘‘whole of government’’ approach to tackle this growing threat, identifying priority areas for interagency coordination, with the objectives of harnessing and strategically applying the 

full breadth of federal resources. It sets three strategic priorities: 

• Strengthening domestic and global enforcement, including assessing the related 

laws, regulations, and enforcement tools; • Reducing demand for illegally traded wildlife at home and abroad; and, • Building international cooperation and public-private partnerships to combat 

illegal wildlife poaching and trade. 

STRENGTHENING DOMESTIC AND GLOBAL ENFORCEMENT

The first of these strategic priorities is strengthening domestic and global enforcement. This includes prioritizing wildlife trafficking enforcement domestically, maximizing the use of tools available under U.S. law, and working with foreign governments and other partners to enhance the capacity of other countries to fight wildlife 

trafficking. 

We are increasingly concerned with links to terrorists and rogue military personnel. Like many illicit activities, it is difficult to determine the extent to which 

these actors are involved in wildlife trafficking. We believe, however, that the Lord’s 

Resistance Army, the Janjaweed, and al-Shabaab have been at least partly involved. 

8 

There is evidence that some insurgent groups are directly involved in poaching or 

trafficking, who then trade wildlife products for weapons or safe haven. We believe 

that, at a minimum, they are likely sharing some of the same facilitators—such as 

corrupt customs and border officials, money launderers, and supply chains. 

We still have much to learn about the full extent of the relationship between 

suspected terrorist financing and wildlife trafficking. One of the goals of our assistance efforts is to promote greater information-sharing and coordination within and 

among governments, law enforcement and intelligence agencies, conservation 

groups, and other actors working in this area. 

The United States sent a strong message that we will not tolerate illicit trade in 

ivory when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service performed an ‘‘Ivory Crush’’ in 

November that destroyed nearly 6 tons of seized or forfeited African and Asian elephant ivory (including full tusks, carved tusks, and smaller carvings and other 

objects). Now many other countries are following suit, including recent destructions 

in China, France, Belgium, and Chad, and we have urged still others to consider 

taking similar actions. In January, Hong Kong announced its plans to destroy its 

stockpile of confiscated ivory and we were pleased to see that destruction began just 

this past Thursday. Additionally, other countries are considering destructions of 

their respective stockpiles of confiscated wildlife products. We are encouraging them 

to pursue these actions. 

The same day that the President released the National Strategy, the U.S. also 

announced an effort to close existing legal loopholes to achieve a near total ban on 

the commercial trade of ivory in the United States, with limited exceptions. This has 

given us the opportunity to lead by example, as we encourage other countries to 

enact their own bans on the commercial ivory trade. 

For the last decade the State Department has partnered with other U.S. Government agencies to stand up regional Wildlife Enforcement Networks (WENs) to 

tackle wildlife trafficking. The State Department and USAID are supporting the 

Association of Southeast Asian Nations ASEAN–WEN, the South Asia WEN, the 

Central America WEN, the Horn of Africa WEN, and other emerging WENs around 

the world, including efforts in Central and Southern Africa and South America. Last 

October we funded a workshop, hosted by the Government of Botswana in 

Gaborone, which laid the groundwork for the Wildlife Enforcement Network for 

Southern Africa (WENSA). In March 2013, we worked to strengthen enforcement 

and existing partnerships by hosting at the Convention on International Trade in 

Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) Conference of Parties the 

First Global Meeting of the Wildlife Enforcement Networks. Our goal is to support 

the creation of a global network of regional wildlife enforcement networks. 

The Department of State has long worked with foreign governments to enhance 

their capacity to fight wildlife trafficking, as well as within international fora and 

through our bilateral relationships to persuade our global partners to treat wildlife 

trafficking seriously. We will continue working with our interagency partners to 

build law enforcement and criminal justice capacity and cooperation globally, with 

the aim of strengthening policies and legislative frameworks and developing capacities to prosecute and adjudicate crimes related to wildlife trafficking. 

REDUCING DEMAND FOR ILLEGALLY TRADED WILDLIFE

Second, the National Strategy focuses on demand reduction, at home and abroad. 

Going forward, the United States will work with existing and new partners to communicate through public outreach and education activities, in the United States and 

abroad, the negative impacts of wildlife trafficking. As we’ve already discussed, the 

impacts are vast, causing irreparable harm to the species themselves, the broader 

environment, security, food supplies, governance, livelihoods, and human health. We 

hope by educating consumers, we can alter their harmful purchasing patterns. 

Addressing demand is a complex and long-term issue, which depends in part on 

the species in question. It is not enough to increase public awareness. In order to 

end wildlife trafficking, the buying must stop. We collaborated a few years ago with 

the NGO community to sponsor public service announcements with conservationist 

Jane Goodall and actor Harrison Ford. We continue to work closely with the NGOs, 

many of whom have ongoing public outreach campaigns, as well as the private sector, including airlines, cruise ships, hotels, and the antique sector. We are in the 

initial stages of working with governmental and nongovernmental colleagues to devise a more comprehensive demand reduction strategy that draws on the respective 

strengths of each sector. On World Wildlife Day, I hosted a listening session with 

a group of international NGOs on strategies to reduce demand for illegally traded 

wildlife, hearing about their international efforts—the successes and lessons 

learned, as well as the challenges inherent in measuring results. We will continue 

9 

to engage the NGOs, private sector and to seek input from the Advisory Council as 

we go forward in implementing this section of the Strategy. 

BUILDING INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION AND PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

Third, the National Strategy seeks to build international cooperation and publicprivate partnerships to combat poaching and the illegal trade in wildlife. We hope 

to build on our existing work in the international arena to further strengthen the 

implementation of international agreements. We will seek new partnerships and 

strengthen existing ones. 

Multilateral Efforts 

We have advocated for countries to work together to combat wildlife trafficking 

in a number of multilateral fora, including Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation 

(APEC), the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), the U.N. Food and 

Agriculture Organization, and the U.N. General Assembly. We have also worked 

with our mission to the U.N. to secure the inclusion of language to address wildlife 

trafficking in two Security Council Resolutions, adopted in January 2014, sanctioning African armed groups. We have also pressed multilateral institutions including the African Union, the African Development Bank, and Regional Economic Communities in Africa to take a more active stance against wildlife trafficking. 

We strengthened the commitment to address wildlife trafficking expressed in both 

the APEC Leaders’ and Foreign Ministerial Declarations issued in 2012 and 2013, 

and we are developing follow-on programming to build capacity in the region to 

reduce demand and strengthen enforcement during the 2014 Chinese APEC chairmanship. 

We recently worked with 30 donor countries to increase funding significantly for 

the Global Environment Facility’s activities to fight wildlife trafficking by addressing both supply and demand through monitoring and enforcement capacity building 

and awareness-raising campaigns. 

Bilateral Efforts 

We continue to address wildlife trafficking in our bilateral relationships. In February, Secretary Kerry and Indonesian Minister of Forestry Zulkifli Hasan signed 

a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on Conserving Wildlife and Combating 

Wildlife Trafficking. The MOU focuses on collaborative efforts to combat wildlife 

trafficking in Indonesia and in third countries, in particular, improving rhino conservation and protection.We have also made strides in our bilateral engagement 

with China to combat wildlife trafficking over the last year building on commitments made in the 2012 and 2013 APEC Leaders Declarations and the 2013 Strategic and Economic Dialogue (S&ED). We will organize a second breakout session 

on wildlife trafficking at the 2014 S&ED, following up on the 2013 session and the 

subsequent progress made in the past year, which includes the destruction of about 

6 tons each of our respective confiscated ivory stockpiles, several interdictions and 

prosecutions of wildlife traffickers, and separate coordinated events in Beijing and 

Washington that recognized the first World Wildlife Day on March 3. The 2014 

breakout session agenda and outcome language are still under discussion, but key 

topics will include demand reduction; a request to China to enact an ivory ban similar the recent U.S. ban on the commercial trade of elephant ivory, with limited 

exceptions; and a commitment to support the development of a global network of 

Wildlife Enforcement Networks. 

We are committed to do more and work smarter with partners around the world 

to support wildlife range and transit states in Africa to maintain the integrity of 

their national borders and protect the continent’s iconic wildlife. On February 12, 

President Obama reached agreement with his French counterpart, Francois 

Hollande, to work together to combat wildlife trafficking in Central Africa. As current facilitator for the Congo Basin Forest Partnership (CBFP), we devoted an 

extended session to the issue at the November 2013 CBFP Partners Meeting. Additionally, this past March the State Department and USAID West Africa teams 

began a regional project with Burkina Faso, Guinea, and Togo to forge connections 

and share valuable information on wildlife crime in the region; there are plans to 

expand this conversation to additional West African countries this month with the 

goal of creating an integrated regional framework developed by and for West Africans to coordinate antiwildlife trafficking efforts. An interesting note: the team is 

implementing the project virtually cost free by utilizing digital video conferencing 

technology already available at U.S. missions in the region. 

In 2013 and 2014 the State Department’s International Visitor Leadership Program (IVLP) held exchanges focused on antipoaching and antitrafficking best pracVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:47 Jan 06, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 2ND SESSION\2014 ISSUE TE
10 

tices, connecting wildlife authorities and private sector stakeholders from key African countries with counterparts in the United States. 

U.S. Ambassadors in sub-Saharan African countries and State Department principals continually encourage African leaders and senior government officials to take 

concrete steps to protect their wildlife, to prevent trafficking, and to put a stop to 

the corruption that enables the crimes to continue. 

CONCLUSION

Combating wildlife trafficking is a complex challenge which demands a multifaceted and whole-of-government approach. Within the framework of the National 

Strategy, we will work across the U.S. Government to focus our international investments to combat wildlife trafficking in the most strategic and effective way possible. 

We seek an open and inclusive dialogue about the challenges presented by wildlife 

trafficking and possible ways to address those challenges. We recognize that the 

United States is part of the problem, and we are determined to be part of the 

solution. 

We appreciate your support and interest. I would be pleased to answer any questions that you may have. 

Senator COONS. Thank you, Ambassador. 

Director Ashe. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL M. ASHE, DIRECTOR, U.S. FISH 

AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. ASHE. Thank you, Chairman Coons, Chairman Cardin, 

Ranking Member Flake. I really appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today, although I have to say I regret the necessity. 

As you know, and as Ambassador Garber has said, we are observing a devastating and escalating crisis in international wildlife 

trafficking. And evidence of that trafficking is on display on the 

table before us. And I believe the most essential ingredient in dealing with that crisis is U.S. leadership and resolve. We saw the result of this, as Ambassador Garber noted, last November when we 

crushed our entire stockpile of seized illegal ivory, and quickly we 

saw other countries, leading countries in the world, responding and 

crushing their own stockpiles of ivory. And we expect to see additional nations follow that lead in the months and years to come. 

We see the world paying heed as the United States organizes its 

all-of-government approach, spurred by President Obama’s Executive order creating the opportunity to leverage resources and expertise across the Federal Government to crack down on poaching and 

trafficking that is devastating some of the world’s most beloved 

animals. 

As the United States is moving to curtail domestic commerce in 

ivory, we again have the attention of the world. This is positioning 

us to work to reduce demand and to speak from a position of authority, not from a position of hypocrisy, on this issue. 

The Service has a four-tiered approach to combat wildlife trafficking. We continue to work with international law enforcement 

agencies to develop and dismantle trafficking networks and arrest 

those responsible for the brutal slaughter of these magnificent 

creatures. We provide critical financial and technical support for 

on-the-ground conservation efforts and capacity-building of range 

states to protect wildlife and bring poachers and traffickers to justice. 

We work here in the United States and with our partners in 

Asia, Europe, and Latin America to reduce demand for wildlife 

products, and we continue to work with CITES member nations to 

11 

support sustainable and well-managed trade and well-managed 

wildlife management programs to provide jobs and economic development in range countries; thus, reducing the allure of poaching 

and trafficking. 

Highlighting some of the strategy’s most significant actions and 

recommendations, we are using the full extent of our legal authority to stop virtually all commercial trade in elephant ivory and 

rhino horn within the United States and across State borders. All 

commercial imports of African elephant ivory into the United 

States will be prohibited, without exception. Nearly all commercial 

exports of elephant ivory will also be prohibited, with the exception 

of a very small and strictly defined class of antiques with verified 

documentation of their antiquity. Domestic commerce will be prohibited, again with the exception of documented antiques and other 

items appropriately documented. 

The strategy also recommends the continued sale of the Save 

Vanishing Species semipostal stamp. The public has purchased 

more than 25 million stamps, generating more than $2.5 million for 

conservation. We need to continue that effort. 

I would like to conclude by asking you to consider this moment 

in history. We have a chance to take action and ensure that elephants, rhinos, and hundreds of other wild plants and animals do 

not vanish from the wild. Because of the President’s leadership and 

that of good colleagues and partner organizations and institutions, 

and the leadership from subcommittees like yours, I believe we can 

dare to dream that our grandchildren and even our great-grandchildren have the opportunity to view these animals in the wild, in 

their natural habitat. I look forward to working with you and your 

subcommittees and the Congress to make that dream a reality. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ashe follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAN M. ASHE

INTRODUCTION

Good afternoon Chairman Coons, Chairman Cardin, Ranking Member Flake, 

Ranking Member Rubio, and members of the subcommittees. I am Dan Ashe, Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), within the Department of the 

Interior (Department). I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today to 

discuss the escalating international wildlife trafficking crisis. 

The Service provides key leadership and capacity in addressing wildlife trafficking. For decades, we have worked in countries across the globe to conserve imperiled 

wildlife and address illicit wildlife trade. The Service’s responsibilities include certain international conservation efforts, administered by our International Affairs 

program. The Service’s Office of Law Enforcement, which is essential to wildlife conservation, also plays a key role in international conservation, including combating 

illegal wildlife trafficking. 

THE WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING CRISIS

Illegal wildlife trade is estimated to be a multibillion-dollar business involving the 

unlawful harvest of and trade in live animals and plants or parts and products 

derived from them. Wildlife is traded as skins, leather goods or souvenirs; as food 

or traditional medicine; as pets; and in many other forms. Illegal wildlife trade is 

typically unsustainable, harming wild populations of animals and plants, and pushing endangered species toward extinction. Endangered animals and plants are often 

the target of wildlife crime because of their rarity and high economic value. Furthermore, wildlife trafficking negatively impacts a country’s natural resources and local 

communities that might otherwise benefit from tourism or legal, sustainable trade. 

12 

Wildlife trafficking once was predominantly a crime of opportunity committed by 

individuals or small groups. Today, it is the purview of international criminal cartels that are well structured and highly organized, and capable of illegally moving 

orders of magnitude more in wildlife and wildlife products. This lucrative business 

may be tied to drug trafficking organizations and is a destabilizing influence in 

many African nations. What was once a local or regional problem has become a 

global crisis, as increasingly sophisticated, violent, and ruthless criminal organizations have branched into wildlife trafficking. Organized criminal enterprises are a 

growing threat to wildlife, the world’s economy, and global security. 

Thousands of wildlife species are threatened by illegal and unsustainable wildlife 

trade. For example, in recent months significant media attention has gone to the 

plight of the world’s rhinoceros species, which are facing increased poaching as 

demand for their horns increases in Asia. In some parts of Asia, rhino horn is considered to be a powerful traditional medicine, used to treat a variety of ailments. 

More recently, demand has shifted to less traditional uses, including as a cure for 

cancer or even as a hangover remedy, particularly in Southeast Asia. While there 

is little or no scientific evidence to support these claims, the dramatic rise in poaching to satisfy this demand is pushing rhinos toward the brink of extinction. 

We have also seen a recent resurgence of elephant poaching in Africa, which is 

threatening this iconic species. Africa’s elephants are being slaughtered for ivory at 

rates not seen in decades. Populations of both savannah and forest elephants have 

dropped precipitously, and poaching occurs across all regions of Africa. There is also 

a terrible human cost associated with these losses. During the past few years, hundreds of park rangers have been killed in the line of duty in Africa. 

Improved economic conditions in markets such as China and other parts of east 

and Southeast Asia are fueling an increased demand for rhino horn, elephant ivory, 

and other wildlife products. More Asian consumers have the financial resources to 

purchase these wildlife products, which are a status symbol for new economic elites. 

Although the primary markets are in Asia, the United States continues to play a 

role as a consumer and transit country for illegally traded wildlife, and we must 

be a part of the solution. 

PRESIDENT’S EXECUTIVE ORDER ON WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING

The administration recognized that if illicit wildlife trade continues on its current 

trajectory some of the world’s most treasured animals could be threatened with extinction. We have a moral obligation to respond, and there is a key role for the U.S. 

Government to play. The criminals have raised their game, and we must do the 

same. In response to this crisis, on July 1, 2013, President Obama issued Executive 

Order 13648 to enhance coordination of U.S. Government efforts to combat wildlife 

trafficking and assist foreign governments with capacity-building. Upon issuing the 

Executive order, President Obama said, ‘‘We need to act now to reverse the effects 

of wildlife trafficking on animal populations before we lose the opportunity to prevent the extinction of iconic animals like elephants and rhinoceroses.’’ 

The Executive order establishes a Presidential Task Force on Wildlife Trafficking 

charged with developing and implementing a National Strategy for Combating Wildlife Trafficking. The Task Force is cochaired by the Department of the Interior, 

Department of Justice, and Department of State, and includes a dozen other departments and agencies. Drawing on resources and expertise from across the U.S. Government, we are working to identify new approaches to crack down on poaching and 

wildlife trafficking and to more efficiently coordinate our enforcement efforts with 

interagency and international partners. 

The Executive order also establishes an Advisory Council on Wildlife Trafficking 

comprised of individuals with relevant expertise from outside the Government to 

make recommendations to the Task Force. The Service, along with the cochairing 

agencies, is engaging the Council’s expertise in law enforcement and criminal justice, wildlife biology and conservation, finance and trade, and international relations 

and diplomacy to develop and advance this national strategy. 

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE’S ROLE IN ADDRESSING WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING

I would like to highlight the National Strategy for Combating Wildlife Trafficking 

and how we in the Service are strengthening our efforts to address this critical 

issue. But first, I would like to discuss the Service’s ongoing efforts over the past 

few decades working across the globe to conserve imperiled wildlife and address 

illicit wildlife trade. We have a four-tiered approach to combat wildlife trafficking 

with our international partners. The approach focuses on: law enforcement; technical assistance; the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of 

Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES); and demand reduction. 

13 

Law Enforcement to Target and Stop Illicit Trade 

The Service is the primary Federal agency responsible for enforcing U.S. laws and 

treaties that address international wildlife trafficking and protect U.S. and foreign 

species from unsustainable trade. Working with shoestring budgets and a special 

agent workforce that has not grown since the late-1970s, the Service has disrupted 

large-scale trafficking in contraband wildlife ‘‘commodities’’ that range from elephant ivory and rhino horn to sturgeon caviar and sea turtle skin and shell. 

Service special agents utilize both overt and clandestine investigative techniques 

to detect and document international smuggling and crimes involving the unlawful 

exploitation of protected native and foreign species in interstate commerce. A wildlife smuggling investigation typically involves securing charges under both the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) (a misdemeanor statute) and the felony wildlife trafficking provisions of the Lacey Act (where the Federal felony violation is predicated 

on the violation of another Federal, State, foreign, or tribal wildlife law). Such investigations also often document and secure felony charges for related crimes such as 

conspiracy, smuggling, money laundering, false statements, and wire fraud. 

Since the mid-1970s, the Service has deployed a force of uniformed wildlife inspectors at major ports of entry across the nation to check inbound and outbound shipments for wildlife. These 130 officers ensure that wildlife trade complies with the 

CITES treaty and U.S. laws. They also conduct proactive inspections of air cargo 

warehouses, ocean containers, international mail packages, and international passenger flights looking for smuggled wildlife. Discoveries by wildlife inspectors at the 

ports may lead to full-scale criminal investigations of wildlife trafficking. 

The Service operates the world’s first and only full-service wildlife forensics laboratory—a lab that is globally recognized as having created the science of wildlife 

forensics. Guidance from the lab, for example, provided an easy way for officers in 

the field to distinguish elephant ivory from other types of ivory, such as mammoth 

or walrus ivory. The Service continues to support a FY 2015 budget request to expand research at our lab to make it easier to determine the origin or geographic 

source of illicit wildlife material, particularly for species threatened by current patterns of illegal trade. Such evidence enhances our ability to provide law enforcement 

and justice officials with evidence to more effectively prosecute wildlife crime. 

Service enforcement officers and forensic scientists have provided specialized 

training to wildlife enforcement counterparts in more than 65 different countries 

since 2000. These capacity-building efforts have included teaching criminal investigation skills to wildlife officers from sub-Saharan Africa at the International Law 

Enforcement Academy in Botswana on a yearly or twice-yearly basis. 

One example of the Service’s law enforcement efforts in combating wildlife trafficking is Operation Crash. This Operation is an ongoing nationwide criminal investigation led by the Service that is addressing all aspects of U.S. involvement in the 

black market rhino horn trade. More than 200 Federal, State, and local law enforcement officers in 40 States and 10 foreign countries have participated in Operation 

Crash over the last 3 years. Since February 2012, 21 individuals have been charged 

with numerous offenses such as conspiracy, smuggling, money laundering, tax evasion, bribery, and making false documents as well as violations of the ESA and 

Lacey Act. Nine convictions to date so far have resulted in several prison sentences 

along with the forfeiture of several luxury vehicles, gold bars, Rolex watches and 

several hundred thousand dollars in illegally obtained funds from dealing in rhino 

horn. 

Wildlife trafficking is increasingly a transnational crime involving illicit activities 

in two or more countries and often two or more global regions. Cooperation between 

nations is essential to combating this crime. Investigations of transnational crime 

are inherently difficult, and among other endeavors, the U.S. Government places 

U.S. law enforcement officials overseas to help combat such transnational crime. In 

January 2014, with assistance from the State Department and USAID, the Service 

created the first program for stationing special agents at U.S. embassies as international attache ́s, to coordinate investigations of wildlife trafficking and support 

wildlife enforcement capacity-building. In collaboration with our State Department 

colleagues, the Service secured the first positions ever for FWS experts to be posted 

in embassies in Bangkok and Dar es Salaam, where they will coordinate investigations of wildlife trafficking and support wildlife enforcement capacity building. Additional postings in key regions are planned in the coming year. 

Technical Assistance and Grants to Build In-Country Capacity 

The Service has a long history of providing technical assistance and grants to 

build in-country capacity for conservation of wildlife species. Through the Multinational Species Conservation Funds, the Service provides funding in the form of 

grants or cooperative agreements to projects benefiting African and Asian elephants, 

14 

rhinos, tigers, great apes, and marine turtles in their natural habitats. A substantial portion of the funding awarded through the Multinational Species Conservation 

Funds is invested in projects aimed at combating wildlife crime through improved 

law enforcement, antipoaching patrols, demand reduction, and economic alternatives. Several of the Service’s global and regional programs, including Africa, 

Asia, and the Western Hemisphere, also directly address wildlife conservation 

efforts, including combating wildlife crime. 

Through the Wildlife Without Borders-Africa Program, a technical and financial 

partnership with USAID, the Service has supported the development of innovative 

methods to conserve wildlife and fight wildlife crime in Central Africa, including 

improvement of investigations, arrest operations, and legal followup. A number of 

projects are geared toward building in-country capacity and providing technical 

assistance to reduce the poaching of African elephants, which once numbered in the 

millions but are now estimated at fewer than 400,000 across the continent. The 

Service is committed to working with in-country partners to halt and reverse this 

trend, most notably in Gabon, where two-thirds of the forest elephants in Minkebe 

National Park have been killed since 2004, a loss of more than 11,000 elephants. 

This includes a 5-year cooperative agreement with the Gabonese National Parks 

Agency totaling more than $3.1 million and matched by more than $3.3 million in 

additional leveraged funds in the first year. 

In Latin America, the Service is working with partners to reduce the trafficking 

of species such as macaws and other parrots, jaguars, and reptiles through law 

enforcement training efforts in Mexico. Grant funding also supports the expansion 

of income-generating programs to communities in Colombia as an alternative to the 

illegal pet trade. Throughout Africa and Asia, funding is supporting conservation 

efforts to reduce the demand for ivory, rhino horn, tigers, pangolins, and other endangered wildlife by targeting government decisionmakers, young people, and the 

business sector through awareness campaigns. 

Through the Critically Endangered Animal Fund and the Amphibians in Decline 

Fund, projects around the world are protecting endangered animals and amphibians 

from poaching and illegal wildlife trade. From Snow Leopards in Pakistan to Peru’s 

Lake Titicaca frogs, these two funds are supporting projects that are helping to save 

these animals. 

This is a pivotal moment in the conservation movement. We are now witnessing 

a confluence of two forces—an alarming, unprecedented, and dramatic increase in 

the slaughter of wildlife coupled with dramatic increases in trafficking and poaching. Species decline is being exacerbated by the lack of law enforcement coupled 

with corruption, instability, and underlying poverty. These grants provide critical 

conservation support across the globe for numerous endangered species. 

CITES and Illegal Wildlife Trade 

CITES, an international agreement among 180 member nations, including the 

United States, is designed to control and regulate global trade in certain wild 

animals and plants that are or may become threatened with extinction due to international trade. As the first nation to ratify CITES, the United States has consistently been a leader in combating wildlife trafficking and protecting natural 

resources. More than 35,000 species currently benefit from CITES protection. International trade in plants and animals, whether taken from the wild or bred in captivity, can pose serious risks to species. Without regulation, international trade can 

deplete wild populations, leading to extinction. The goal of CITES is to facilitate 

legal, biologically sustainable trade, whenever possible. But in some cases, no level 

of commercial trade can be supported. 

Though a longstanding priority for CITES Parties, the focus on combating elephant poaching and illegal ivory trade is more intense than ever before. In March 

2013, at the most recent meeting of the Conference of the Parties (CoP16), eight 

countries—China, Kenya, Malaysia, the Philippines, Tanzania, Thailand, Uganda, 

and Vietnam—that were identified as significant source, transit, or destination 

points for illegal ivory trade agreed to develop time-bound action plans to actively 

address illegal ivory trade. 

Also at CoP16, the CITES Parties recognized the importance of addressing the entire crime chain by adopting several decisions to ensure that modern forensic and 

investigative techniques are applied to the illegal trade in ivory. The CITES Parties 

agreed to provide more effective control over domestic ivory markets and government-held stockpiles, and to promote public awareness campaigns, including supplyand-demand-reduction strategies. 

The decisions agreed upon at CoP16 to address the elephant poaching crisis were 

a significant step in the right direction. The United States played a major role in 

the development of all of these decisions and actions, and is committed to playing 

15 

a significant role in their implementation, including ensuring that countries are 

held accountable for failure to do so. 

Reducing Consumer Demand for Illegal Wildlife Products 

Most of the international conservation work funded by the Service has focused on 

on-the-ground protection of habitat and wildlife, including enforcement efforts, with 

the Service providing approximately $10 million annually to enhance and support 

wildlife conservation throughout Africa and Asia. In addition, the Service supports 

government and nongovernment partners in consumer nations in Asia in public 

awareness and demand-reduction campaigns. 

Over the years, the Service has also worked to educate and inform U.S. consumers about the role they play in wildlife trafficking and the impacts of this illegal 

activity on animal and plant species around the world. These efforts have ranged 

from partnering with nongovernmental organizations on a long-running ‘‘Buyer 

Beware’’ campaign and commissioning our law enforcement officers to present outreach programs on wildlife trafficking at the local, State, and national levels, to 

using airport billboards and social media to engage the public on this issue. 

Working with our cochairs, the Service will play a key role in efforts to reduce 

demand for illegally traded wildlife. Using our extensive network and experience, 

we are developing a strategy for the Service’s role in addressing consumer demand. 

This includes working with the private sector and governments in key consumer 

countries to build public awareness about the impacts of illegal trade on wildlife, 

the potential penalties for engaging in such activities, and taking other actions to 

encourage attitudinal and behavioral shifts, all leading to measurable reductions in 

demand for illegal wildlife products. 

U.S. IVORY CRUSH

As part of our effort to combat illegal ivory trafficking, on November 14, 2013, 

the United States destroyed its 6-ton stock of confiscated elephant ivory, sending a 

clear message that we will not tolerate wildlife crime that threatens to wipe out the 

African elephant and a host of other species around the globe. The destruction of 

this ivory, which took place near the Service’s National Wildlife Property Repository 

on the Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge near Denver, CO, was witnessed by representatives of African nations and other countries, dozens of leading 

conservationists, and international media representatives. 

This ivory crush sparked a new sense of possibility and collaboration—that we can 

work together effectively to halt this crisis before it is too late. We now are in a 

much better position to work with the international community to push for a reduction of ivory stockpiles worldwide, and to crack down on poaching and illegal trade. 

The ivory crush signaled the United States commitment to combating wildlife trafficking and one of the goals was to encourage other nations to do the same. Following the U.S. ivory crush, a number of other countries and regions destroyed their 

illegal stockpiles of ivory, including China, France, Chad, Belgium, and Hong Kong. 

NATIONAL STRATEGY FOR COMBATING WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING

In accordance with the Executive order, the Presidential Task Force produced a 

National Strategy for Combating Wildlife Trafficking. The National Strategy establishes strategic priorities and guiding principles to help focus and strengthen the 

U.S. Government’s efforts to combat wildlife trafficking, and to position the United 

States to exercise leadership on this urgent issue. 

The strategic priorities include: (1) strengthening the enforcement of laws and the 

implementation of international agreements that protect wildlife; (2) reducing 

demand for illegal wildlife and wildlife products; and (3) working in partnership 

with governments, local communities, nongovernmental organizations, the private 

sector, and others to enhance global commitment to combat wildlife trafficking. 

The Service is integrally involved in all of these priorities, but I would like to 

highlight a few areas of particular importance in our efforts to stem illegal wildlife 

trade. 

Administrative Actions to Address the Current Poaching Crisis 

The United States has several laws and regulations in place that can help to 

address the poaching crisis. African elephants are listed as threatened under the 

ESA and also protected under the African Elephant Conservation Act. Nations 

across the world regulate trade in this species under CITES. Under these U.S. laws, 

it is generally illegal to: 

• Import or export African elephant ivory for primarily commercial purposes; 

• Import or export it for other purposes without CITES documents; 

16 

• Buy or sell unlawfully imported African elephant ivory in interstate commerce. 

Asian elephants are listed as endangered under the ESA. Import, export, and 

interstate commerce in ivory and other parts and products are generally prohibited. 

Though there are several laws and regulations in place to address illegal trade, 

a number of loopholes exist that are exploited by illegal ivory traders. Following the 

release of the National Strategy, the Service has taken steps toward implementing 

a near complete ban on commercial trade in elephant ivory. The first of these steps 

was the issuance of a director’s order, which re-affirmed the African Elephant Conservation Act moratorium and the ESA definition of ‘‘antique.’’ Though this order 

was issued as a policy action, we intend to incorporate provisions in the order into 

our regulations through a public rule-making process, with opportunity for public 

comment. 

In addition to the provisions in the Director’s Order, we will improve our ability 

to protect elephants, rhinos, and other CITES-listed wildlife by publishing a final 

rule revising our CITES regulations, including ‘‘use after import’’ provisions that 

limit sale of elephant ivory within the United States. Under this new rule, items 

such as elephant ivory and rhino horn imported for noncommercial purposes may 

not subsequently be sold in either intrastate or interstate commerce. These regulations were already published as a proposed rule with opportunity for public comment. 

In the coming months, we will also publish a proposed rule to revise the ESA special rule for the African elephant (50 CFR 17.40(e)). This action will also include 

a public comment period. We will also propose limiting the number of elephant 

sport-hunted trophies that an individual can import to two per person per year. 

The combined result of these administrative actions would be the virtual elimination of all commercial trade (import, export, and interstate and intrastate sale) 

in elephant ivory and rhino horn, with certain narrow exceptions. Taking these 

measures will establish U.S. leadership and support diplomatic efforts to encourage 

demand reduction in consumer nations. The United States is one of the world’s 

major consumers of illicit wildlife products, and we must lead by example. We also 

believe these actions are consistent with recent CITES recommendations adopted at 

CoP16. 

Assess and Strengthen Legal Authorities 

While the Service is pursuing administrative actions to address the poaching crisis, the National Strategy also identifies the need to analyze and assess in general 

the laws, regulations, and enforcement tools that are now, or could be, used to combat wildlife trafficking. The goal is to determine which are most effective and identify those that require strengthening. 

In particular, the National Strategy calls on Congress to consider legislation to 

recognize wildlife trafficking crimes as predicate offenses for money laundering. This 

action would be invaluable to the Service’s law enforcement efforts because it would 

place wildlife trafficking on an equal footing with other serious crimes. It would also 

provide our special agents with the same tools to investigate serious crimes that 

other federal law enforcement agencies have. This legislative change would help 

take the profit out of the illegal wildlife trade and end the days of wildlife trafficking being a low-risk, high-profit crime. Strong penalties provide a deterrent and 

assist the U.S. Government in unraveling complex conspiracies and combating trafficking. Offenders facing significant penalties are more likely to become key cooperating defendants than those facing a light penalty. 

Save the Vanishing Species Semipostal Stamp 

The National Strategy recommends continuing the sale of the Save the Vanishing 

Species Semipostal stamp. This stamp, which went on sale on September 20, 2011, 

has been providing vital support for the Service’s efforts to fight global wildlife trafficking and poaching. More than 25.5 million stamps have been purchased in the 

United States by the public online and at their local post offices, generating more 

than $2.5 million for conservation. This money has been used to support 47 projects 

in 31 countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America to conserve elephants, rhinoceroses, tigers, marine turtles, and great apes. These funds have been leveraged by 

an additional $3.6 million in matching contributions—making the stamp a key part 

of the United States response to protecting wildlife and addressing the ongoing 

worldwide epidemic of poaching and wildlife trafficking. 

The continued sale of the Save the Vanishing Species Semipostal stamp is authorized by legislation enacted by Congress. However, the requirement to sell the stamp 

for 2 years has expired and the Postal Service has discontinued the sale of the 

stamp at this time. Continuing to sell the stamp would extend an opportunity for 

17 

the American public to support wildlife conservation abroad by directly contributing 

money to help rhinos, tigers, elephants, sea turtles, and great apes. 

Increasing Capacity to Address Wildlife Trafficking 

The Service is requesting $3.0 million in increases for its Law Enforcement and 

International Affairs programs as part of the National Strategy for Combating Wildlife Trafficking. I urge the Congress to support the President’s budget request so 

that we can increase our efforts to change the trajectory of wildlife trafficking before 

it is too late for some species. The current wildlife trafficking crisis includes an escalating mass slaughter of elephants in Africa. If it is not stopped, the world may well 

lose wild populations of African elephants forever. A key to preventing this is to 

strengthen the Service’s capacities in a number of areas described below. 

This increase would allow the Service’s Office of Law Enforcement to begin to 

fully utilize its network of special agent/international attache ́s and build on past 

successes in combating global wildlife trafficking. Most of the FY 2015 Law Enforcement Operations requested increase would go to strengthening forensic capabilities 

needed to address wildlife trafficking, including illegal timbering, and expanding the 

capacity of the Special Investigations Unit so that it can maximize the scope and 

effectiveness of Service efforts to respond to the elephant poaching crisis and shutdown trafficking in elephant ivory. 

Successfully addressing the wildlife trafficking crisis requires actions in both the 

source countries and in the countries where demand for wildlife products drives 

poaching and illegal trade. The increase in the FY 2015 budget request would allow 

the Service’s International Affairs program to work with key countries, such as Vietnam, China, Malaysia, and the Philippines , where demand for illegal wildlife products is high, to mobilize their private sectors in support of demand reduction campaigns. Funding would also be used to enable the implementation of one pilot 

project at a major elephant reserve to adapt drug interdiction techniques to combatting wildlife trafficking. 

Strong governance and effective implementation of international treaty obligations, in particular CITES, will also play a key role in curbing wildlife trafficking 

and supporting wildlife conservation. Equally important, U.S. consumers need to be 

aware of the laws that regulate wildlife trade and the plight of wild animal and 

plant species threatened by illegal and unsustainable trade in order to reduce 

demand. The increase in the FY 2015 budget request would support the effective 

implementation of ivory trade action plans and other actions agreed to at CoP16, 

and enable the Service to develop and implement a comprehensive outreach and 

education strategy targeting U.S. consumers of illegally traded wildlife. 

CONCLUSION

I would like to thank the subcommittees for your support of our efforts to combat 

wildlife trafficking. We look forward to continuing to work with you as we move 

from the National Strategy into the implementation phase. The Presidential Task 

Force is developing a detailed implementation plan—outlining proposed agency 

actions to better leverage federal resources, share data, and coordinate law enforcement and conservation efforts across government, both domestically and internationally. The implementation plan will also address the importance of public/ 

private partnerships in combating wildlife trafficking, and identify clear opportunities to work on the ground with local communities and other members of the public. 

We are also engaging the Advisory Council on Wildlife Trafficking regarding implementation of the National Strategy. We will engage your subcommittees, as well as 

other committees as appropriate, as we move forward. 

I want to leave you by asking you to consider this moment in history—and the 

choice we must all make as human beings and global citizens. We have a chance 

here, and now, to build on this National Strategy to ensure a secure future for elephants, rhinos, and hundreds of other wild plant and animal species. How will we 

answer when our grandchildren ask why some of these magnificent creatures no 

longer exist in the wild? I want to be able to tell them that the Service did everything we could to keep these amazing species from vanishing from our planet. I look 

forward to working with your subcommittees to make it a reality. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony today. I would be pleased to 

answer any questions that you may have. 

Senator COONS. Thank you, Director. 

Assistant Administrator Postel. 

18 

STATEMENT OF HON. ERIC G. POSTEL, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE BUREAU OF ECONOMIC GROWTH, EDUCATION, AND ENVIRONMENT, U.S. AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. POSTEL. Good afternoon, Chairman Coons, Chairman Cardin, 

and Ranking Member Flake. I would like to thank the committee 

for holding today’s hearing and giving USAID the opportunity to 

testify. 

And, like you, my fellow panelists, and everybody else in this 

room, USAID is deeply concerned by the disturbing surge in poaching and illegal fishing and the threat it represents to wildlife diversity. The slaughter of thousands of animals, and the murder of 

park rangers, let us not forget, trying to protect these species, must 

be stopped. 

Today, rhino horn is more valuable per ounce than gold and a 

whole host of illegal products. The illegal killing and capture of 

wildlife, as you have noted, triggers a host of serious problems. The 

proceeds fund terrorists and militias, the local inhabitants are 

harmed, livelihoods in local economies are disrupted, and the rule 

of law is threatened. Poaching also threatens tourism, which is a 

major source of economic growth in countries such as Tanzania and 

Kenya. The broad destabilizing effects of wildlife trafficking creates 

incentives for corruption, discourages foreign investment, and disrupts ecosystems, with far-reaching consequences. That is why 

wildlife trafficking is an international development issue, and why 

USAID is committed to stemming this current crisis, in partnership with all of you and our colleagues across the U.S. Government. 

Our antipoaching work has traditionally focused on community 

conservation. One particularly successful effort was in Namibia, 

where, over 15 years, we invested about $40 million to establish 

community conservancies, where local people were given the rights 

to manage and benefit from their local natural resources. Today, 

one in eight Namibians, as Senator Flake may know, is a part of 

a conservancy and benefiting from the economic benefits, and the 

wildlife populations are growing, with almost no recorded poaching, 

the last couple of years, within those conservancies. Nepal has been 

similarly successful. In 2013, no tigers, elephants, or rhinos were 

poached in Nepal; in part, due to 20 years of investment and support by a wide range of organizations. 

But, though we take pride, along with others, in those successes, 

we face the stark reality that, since 2008, there has been a tremendous growth in demand for wildlife products, and it is fueling the 

poaching that we have all been discussing today. And these traffickers are sophisticated, organized, and violent, using all the financial, political, and technological tools at their disposal. 

Pursuant to the new U.S. national strategy, USAID’s expanded 

efforts will focus on three main goals: stop the demand for wildlife 

products, stop the poaching, and stop the trafficking. And to 

achieve that, USAID will nearly double direct funding to combat 

wildlife trafficking, to an estimated $40 million in fiscal year 2014. 

We will focus on wildlife trafficking hotspots in these source, transit, and demand countries, and especially those that have made a 

political commitment to address the issue. We will concentrate the 

majority of the funding in Africa, the center of the elephant and 

19 

rhino poaching; next will be Asia, where there are both poaching 

problems and, of course, it is one of the main sources of the demand. 

We have activities underway, as you noted in your opening comments, involving stopping the demand, stopping poaching, and trying to stop trafficking, often in great partnership with other colleagues and departments within the United States Government. 

Finally, I would like to note that, as the U.S. Government and 

USAID works on the front lines in the courts, on community conservation, and on reducing demand, we will also try new approaches, such as launching a new wildlife trafficking tech challenge that will seek to identify the most creative and promising 

technological solutions to wildlife crime. This effort is part of our 

overall USAID new model of development that emphasizes partnerships, innovation, and results. By applying new methods to our 

comprehensive approach to fight trafficking, we hope to save the 

world’s most iconic species and promote sustainable development in 

all these countries. 

Based on my 3 years in government, I want to assure you and 

my fellow citizens that the employees with whom I have worked on 

this issue at the State Department, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

and USAID are all completely committed to trying to tackle this 

problem, are working very hard, are incredibly smart and experienced experts, and are dedicated to partnering with governments, 

the private sector, NGOs, and citizens around the world to tackle 

this. 

Thank you for your interest in this topic, and I look forward to 

your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Postel follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ERIC G. POSTEL

INTRODUCTION

Good afternoon Chairman Coons, Chairman Cardin, Ranking Member Flake, 

Ranking Member Rubio and other members of the subcommittees. On behalf of U.S. 

Agency for International Development (USAID) Administrator Shah, I would like to 

thank the committee for holding today’s hearing and giving me the opportunity to 

testify. 

President Obama set forth a new vision of a results-driven USAID that would 

lead the world in development. We have risen to this challenge, pioneering a new 

model of development that emphasizes partnerships, innovation, and results. We are 

guided in these efforts by a new mission statement: we partner to end extreme poverty and promote resilient democratic societies while advancing our security and 

prosperity. Combating wildlife trafficking and the promotion of conservation are 

critically important to USAID and our mission. Conservation, which includes combating wildlife trafficking, is fundamental to human development and in achieving 

sustainable development. 

USAID along with our U.S. Government counterparts represented here today are 

deeply concerned by the recent disturbing surge in poaching and the threat it represents to wildlife diversity. The slaughter of thousands of animals and the murder 

of park rangers trying to protect these species must be stopped. 

USAID has a longstanding commitment to conserve and protect wildlife, reflecting, as Secretary Kerry recently noted the United States deep and abiding conservation tradition. Millions of Americans treasure the world’s natural heritage and support safeguarding its wildlife. The increased flood of criminal trafficking not only 

raises the specter of species extinction and ecological disturbance, but also undermines conservation achievements, erodes economic prospects and saps national security. As a result, USAID has tripled its support to address this crisis over the past 

2 years, investing an estimated $40 million this year to develop innovative solutions 

20 

in antipoaching, community conservation, and the reduction of consumer demand for 

trafficked products. 

USAID’s wildlife trafficking efforts are underway within the context of the administration’s ‘‘National Strategy for Combating Wildlife Trafficking.’’ The National 

Strategy establishes guiding principles and priorities for U.S. efforts to stem the 

illegal trade in wildlife via enhanced interagency cooperation and coordination. The 

National Strategy also affirms our Government’s resolve to work in partnership 

with other governments, local communities, nongovernmental organizations (NGO), 

the private sector and others to combat wildlife trafficking. 

Today, rhino horn is more valuable per ounce than gold. The illegal and brutal 

capture and culling of wildlife trigger a host of additional serious problems: the proceeds fund weapons for terrorist networks and militias, local inhabitants are 

harmed, livelihoods and local economies are disrupted, and the rule of law threatened. Poaching also threatens tourism, which is often a major source of economic 

growth in developing countries such as Tanzania and Botswana. The broad destabilizing effects of wildlife trafficking creates incentives for corruption (including 

inside the wildlife management agencies that are responsible for protecting wildlife) 

discourages foreign investment, and disrupts ecosystems with far-reaching consequences. In my time at USAID, I have met people who can send their kids to 

school because of income earned from ecotourism, who have enough food because 

they are harvesting wild fish sustainably and who are healthy because of the clean 

water protected by forested hillsides. When nature is lost and the environment is 

degraded, the poorest in the world usually suffer the most. 

USAID ROLE IN COMBATING WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING

In helping to implement the National Strategy, USAID’s vision is to adapt and 

deploy a range of development tools and interventions to significantly reduce illegal 

wildlife trafficking. Historically, USAID’s antipoaching work has focused on community-based conservation. A particularly successful effort was with our Namibian 

partners. For almost 15 years, USAID invested $40 million in this program to establish community ‘‘conservancies’’ where local people were given the rights to manage 

and benefit from their natural resources. As a result of this transformational program, community opinion changed in favor of wildlife and wildlife populations 

increased along with the economic benefits to communities. Today, one in eight 

Namibians is a member of a conservancy, the economic benefits and wildlife populations continue to grow, and there is almost no recorded poaching in the conservancies in Namibia. Similar success has been seen in Nepal, where in 2013 no 

tigers, elephants, or rhinos were poached. This was due, in part, to 20 years of 

USAID support to communities to manage their forests. We also credit U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service grants for rhino conservation as part of these successes, and 

appreciate the recent work of the Millennium Challenge Corporation in investing in 

Namibia’s conservancies. 

These examples demonstrate that regions with a history of long-term investment 

in community conservation are more resistant to the current poaching crisis. As we 

move forward, it is important to recognize that this success required major investments and consistent effort over decades. We recognize as well that we are only one 

part of the answer, and that we must work with other partners, such as our U.S. 

Government colleagues, the private sector, NGOs and host country governments. 

Together we can work to strengthen the front lines, build political will, and foment 

cultural changes to reduce demand and underlying corruption. 

While we take pride in these successes, we face the stark reality that since 2008, 

the tremendous growth in demand for wildlife products (including in the United 

States) has fueled a poaching rate that has completely overwhelmed previously 

secure regions. Forest elephant populations in Central Africa declined by 62 percent 

between 2002 and 2011. Relentless poaching in South Africa’s Kruger National Park 

is threatening the world’s largest white rhino population. And in our oceans, illegal 

shark finning is pushing many shark species to the brink of extinction. Today’s wildlife traffickers are sophisticated, organized, and violent, using all of the financial, 

political, and technological tools at their disposal. New approaches, new partnerships and better coordination at the local, national, and international level are 

needed if we are to save these precious resources. 

Pursuant to the National Strategy, our efforts will focus on three main goals: stop 

the demand for wildlife products, stop the poaching, and stop the trafficking. 

To achieve these goals: 

1. USAID will nearly double direct funding to combat wildlife trafficking to an 

estimated annual $40 million, up from over $20 million in the previous fiscal year. 

It is worth noting that this $40 million estimate is conservative as many of our bioVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:47 Jan 06, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 2ND SESSION\2014 ISSUE TE
21 

diversity programs in our $200 million per year conservation portfolio contribute 

indirectly to antitrafficking efforts such as protecting critical habitats for wildlife. 

2. We will focus on wildlife trafficking hotspots in those source, transit, and 

demand countries that have made a political commitment to address the issue. 

3. We will concentrate the majority of FY14 funding in Africa, the center of the 

elephant and rhino poaching crisis, followed by Asia, where both consumer demand 

and poaching continue to rise. 

To do all that, our first step is to analyze the country-level factors affecting and 

being affected by illicit trade. The analysis yields a suite of support activities to be 

undertaken. That may mean helping communities manage wildlife at the same time 

that we provide training and equipment to park rangers. In other cases, we work 

with national governments to develop new wildlife policies. Our analysis also recognizes that we cannot—and should not—do everything. We work with other agencies, 

NGOs, and private companies to achieve impact. And, we emphasize that programs 

won’t succeed unless the counterpart government is committed to achieving success. 

Once designed, we monitor and measure progress, generating evidence about what 

works. 

STOP THE DEMAND

USAID supports activities that help shut down illicit markets. In 2012, a monitoring report from USAID’s partner International Fund for Animal Welfare led to 

a crackdown by the Chinese State Forestry Police on Web sites and antique markets 

in China. The police disrupted 13 criminal gangs, arrested or fined more than 1,000 

illegal traders, and seized more than 130,000 wild animals and 2,000 animal products. Authorities shut down more than 7,000 street shops and over 600 Web sites 

selling banned animals, and removed 1,600 related online messages. This effort was 

the largest police action to date tackling the massive online trade in illegal wildlife 

in China. When the same Web sites were revisited 4 months later, the number of 

wildlife products for sale had decreased by more than 50 percent. Continuous monitoring shows that the effect of the enforcement action has kept the illegal trade 

below previous levels. 

A growing part of USAID’s portfolio seeks to reduce consumer demand for wildlife, 

the root cause of wildlife trafficking. We have a 5-year program that supports public 

awareness campaigns to reduce demand for wildlife in Thailand, Vietnam, and 

China. For example, its iThink campaign uses local celebrities and high-profile government officials in public service campaigns to create a groundswell of public opinion against wildlife purchases. The ‘‘Fin Free Thailand’’ campaign recently unveiled 

its ‘‘Blue List’’ of 100 hotels that will no longer serve shark-fin soup or any shark 

meat, an example of working with the private sector to achieve greater impact. 

Other activities focus on Asia’s youth, who have tremendous power to influence 

their peers—and parents—to stop buying illegal wildlife products. 

STOP THE POACHING

On the supply side, USAID fights poaching in more than 25 countries, often with 

our colleagues at the Department of State, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and 

other federal agencies. We work with governments to ensure that poachers are prosecuted and held accountable. For example, in countries such as Kenya, Tanzania 

and the Philippines, USAID is providing support to wildlife-focused Ministries to 

develop national antipoaching strategies; improve ranger capacity; enhance information networks; and reform out-of-date wildlife laws, including penalties. 

One example of this work is in the Salonga National Park in the Democratic 

Republic of the Congo, home to rare forest elephants and the endangered bonobo. 

When USAID-supported collections of park patrol data revealed in early 2012 that 

heavily armed elephant poachers had infiltrated the park and overwhelmed undertrained and ill-equipped park guards, the Congolese Government committed more 

than 300 military personnel to root out the poachers through ‘‘Operation Bonobo.’’ 

In collaboration with National Park authorities, the military conducted a sweep of 

the park and surrounding communities. As of September 2012, authorities had 

arrested 30 suspected poachers, seven of whom have been sentenced to prison. In 

addition, more than 120 high-powered firearms were confiscated, including assault 

rifles. Since then, nearly all signs of hunting have disappeared, and elephants have 

returned to areas they avoided during the siege. 

As we support antipoaching efforts on the front lines, we will also continue to 

invest in communities that live with and benefit from wildlife. Local communities 

are increasingly recognized as key partners with government in the fight against 

poaching, de facto ‘‘gatekeepers’’ because they often live next to protected areas that 

support wildlife populations. By increasing the economic returns from conservation, 

22 

wildlife becomes more valuable alive than dead, building a local constituency for 

action on protection. Community-based conservation is a key part of USAID’s 

approach because it provides the foundation for lasting success, as we have seen 

throughout our work. 

STOP THE TRAFFICKING

In the illegal wildlife supply chain, poachers profit the least and are easily replaced. Targeting mid- and high-level traffickers is a more effective strategy to shut 

down trafficking networks. Much work remains to be done in this area. USAID supports activities to help build strong criminal cases against traffickers. For example, 

in the Philippines, we and our colleagues in the U.S. Department of the Interior, 

including the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, advise and support the Philippine Government to improve environmental law enforcement. Together, we are helping to 

build robust systems to prosecute wildlife traffickers, including the development of 

‘‘rules of procedure’’ for environmental cases, institutionalized training for prosecutors and judges to prosecute wildlife crimes, and capacity-building for wildlife 

forensics. 

USAID was also an early funder of the ‘‘WEN’’—or Wildlife Enforcement Network—enforcement model, starting in 2005. This program, in concert particularly 

with the Department of State, forged regional cooperation between police, customs, 

judicial, and environmental agencies in the ten ASEAN countries. ASEAN–WEN 

established a model that is now being replicated in other regions, with support from 

USAID and our interagency colleagues. 

USAID is also supporting some efforts to map and shut down the transit routes 

through which illegal wildlife is trafficked. Wildlife traffickers use complex shipping 

routes that frequently change, conceal illicit cargo on transport vessels and falsify 

documents at ports of exit and entry. For example, USAID assessments have 

revealed direct links between the abalone trade and drug trafficking and provided 

new insights into the complexity of ivory trade routes, including seasonal changes 

and the opening of new export and import nodes. These findings will inform targeted interventions in that will help disrupt illegal trade between Africa and Asia. 

FINAL REMARKS

Despite the strong programs and successes I have just described, there is no denying that we are in the throes of a poaching crisis. Almost every week, a new article 

details fresh atrocities committed against wildlife. But there are also encouraging 

signs of increased global vigilance, cooperation and effort. 

Since President Obama issued the Executive order to Combat Wildlife Trafficking 

last summer, we have also been examining how else USAID can best support the 

global effort to combat wildlife trafficking. It is clear that community conservation 

should remain a major focus that we must continue our work with governments on 

the front lines and in the courts and that we must stamp out consumer demand. 

But what about new approaches? As you know, there is a renewed focus on using 

science, technology, innovation and partnership at USAID to solve intractable development problems. We are also applying this to the illicit trade in wildlife. 

Later this year, we will launch the Wildlife Trafficking Tech Challenge, a new 

program that will seek the most creative, innovative, and promising science and 

technology solutions to wildlife crime. We will focus on four critically important 

areas where technology has the potential to make big impacts: (1) understanding 

and shutting down transit routes, (2) improving forensic tools and intelligence gathering to build strong criminal cases, (3) understanding and reducing consumer 

demand and (4) combating corruption along the illegal wildlife supply chain. This 

program will specifically draw in applicants from fields outside of conservation, such 

as software engineers, forensic scientists, social media experts and universities. We 

hope some of your constituents will participate so that fresh eyes and new partnerships will complement our ongoing conservation work to reduce the slaughter. 

I would like to thank you again for your support on this issue and for the opportunity to speak with you today. I look forward to your questions and any thoughts 

you might have on how we might engage your constituencies in the fight against 

wildlife trafficking. Attached to my written testimony for the record is a copy of the 

2013 USAID Biodiversity Conservation Report which details all of USAID’s programming to combat wildlife trafficking. 

[EDITOR’S NOTE.—The Report mentioned above sumitted for the 

record by Eric Postel was too voluminous to include in the printed 

hearing. It will be retained in the permanent record of the committee.] 

23 

Senator COONS. Thank you, Assistant Administrator. 

Deputy Assistant Secretary Darby. 

STATEMENT OF BROOKE DARBY, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR THE BUREAU OF INTERNATIONAL NARCOTICS 

AND LAW ENFORCEMENT AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

STATE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Ms. DARBY. Chairmen Coons and Cardin, Ranking Member 

Flake, it is a pleasure to appear before you today to discuss the 

threat posed by wildlife trafficking and efforts of the Department 

of State’s Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement 

Affairs, known as INL, to address it. 

Wildlife trafficking is among the top five most lucrative forms of 

transnational organized criminal activity, generating an estimated 

$8 to $10 billion in illicit revenues each year. The damage it causes 

is serious and multifold. It puts the safety of civilian populations 

at risk through the use of heavy weaponry and aggressive tactics; 

it fuels and is fueled by corruption, which undermines the rule of 

law, good governance, and citizens’ faith in their government; it 

creates and exacerbates border insecurity; it weakens financial stability and economic growth, particularly in countries that rely 

heavily on tourism revenues; and there is some evidence that terrorist and militia groups, including al-Shabaab, the Lord’s Resistance Army, and the Janjaweed, have profited from the trade. 

Today, wildlife trafficking is a low-risk, high-reward enterprise. 

The President’s national strategy to combat wildlife trafficking and 

the efforts that INL, those represented here today, and other agencies throughout our government are taking in furtherance of that 

strategy, are designed to change that equation and, in doing so, to 

protect wildlife and to protect people. 

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee, then under the chairmanship of now Secretary of State Kerry, was early to raise the 

alarm about the illegal wildlife trade and the threats it poses. With 

strong support from this committee and others in Congress, INL is 

advancing the enforcement and international cooperation pillars of 

the President’s strategy through capacity-building programs and 

diplomatic engagement, targeting four key areas. 

First, legislative frameworks to make sure countries have the 

laws in place to vigorously investigate and successfully prosecute 

wildlife crime, with penalties that constitute true deterrence. 

Second, investigative and enforcement capacities to develop deeper knowledge of how organized criminal groups operate in this 

space, and begin to dismantle them. 

Third, prosecutorial and judicial capacities to give courts the 

tools they need to prosecute wildlife trafficking effectively. 

And fourth, enhancing cross-border law enforcement cooperation, 

particularly through the wildlife enforcement networks. 

We already are seeing results. In February, a monthlong operation named COBRA II, involving 28 countries from throughout Africa, Asia, as well as the United States, and supported by INL, 

USAID, and others, arrested 400 individuals and made more than 

350 major wildlife seizures. More such operations will follow in the 

future. 

24 

Late last year, Secretary Kerry announced the first $1 million reward offer under the new Transnational Organized Crime Rewards 

Program that this committee helped to authorize for prolific wildlife trafficking syndicate based in Laos, but operating throughout 

Africa and Asia, known as the Xaysavang Network. There are early 

signs that turning up the pressure on this network is having an 

impact on its operations. 

And last year’s U.N. Crime Commission adopted a resolution, cosponsored by the United States and Peru, that presses countries to 

make wildlife trafficking a serious crime, which not only creates a 

bigger deterrent, but also allows countries to utilize tools available 

under the U.N. Convention on Transnational Organized Crime, like 

extradition and mutual legal assistance, to go after and punish 

wildlife traffickers. 

There is much more we and the international community must 

do, but, with your continued support, we are better positioned than 

ever to address the wildlife trafficking threat. 

Thank you, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Darby follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BROOKE DARBY

Chairmen Coons and Cardin, Ranking Members Flake and Rubio, and distinguished members of the Subcommittees on African Affairs and East Asian and 

Pacific Affairs, thank you for inviting me here today to discuss the threat posed 

from wildlife trafficking and the efforts of the Department of State’s Bureau of 

International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL) to address it. 

I testify before you today alongside committed champions and long-time supporters of enhancing conservation efforts, improving land management, protecting 

endangered species, and strengthening law enforcement capacities that safeguard 

natural resources and prevent and prosecute environmental and wildlife trafficking 

crimes. And while this may be an area that INL is somewhat new to, you can rest 

assured that we are now much more actively engaged, taking to heart the call-toaction by both the President and Secretary of State, to leverage all instruments at 

our disposal to strengthen our partners’ law enforcement and criminal justice capacities to combat wildlife trafficking. 

Let me provide some insights into the breadth and scale of the challenge posed 

by the global illicit trade in wildlife. Increasing demand for illegally traded wildlife 

products in the last several years has fueled a massive uptick in poaching, particularly in Africa, and growing engagement by sophisticated transnational organized 

criminal networks, drawn to profits that can rival, or in some cases even exceed, 

those derived from drug trafficking. Conservative estimates of $8–$10 billion in illicit revenues per year place wildlife trafficking among the top five most lucrative 

forms of transnational organized crime. In addition to searching out opportunities 

for high rewards, criminals also exploit environments with low risks of detection 

and meaningful punishment—and they find that in the illicit wildlife trade where 

they are able to exploit porous borders, corrupt officials, insufficient enforcement 

and investigative capacities and penalties, weak legal regimes, and lax financial system oversight. 

All of us need to be concerned about the wide-ranging impact of the illegal wildlife 

trade, and organized criminal organizations’ involvement in it. I’d like to talk about 

the serious impact this crime has on humans and our security from INL’s perspective: 

• The high-tech weaponry and violent, aggressive tactics now employed by poachers threaten the safety and security of civilian populations, particularly in supply (also known as ‘‘range’’) states. Park rangers are at special risk and many 

have been killed trying to protect wildlife. 

• The corruption that both fuels, and is fueled by, the illegal wildlife trade undermines good governance and the rule of law, and erodes citizens’ confidence in 

their government institutions. 

• Wildlife trafficking crimes create and exacerbate border insecurity, creating new 

vulnerabilities that other criminals, terrorists, and militias can exploit. 

25 

• The depletion of natural resources, and related corruption, weakens financial 

stability and economic growth, particularly in countries for which tourism is a 

major revenue source. Furthermore, illicit trade in illegally harvested marine 

species threatens food security, potentially undermining political stability in 

many developing nations. • Terrorists and militia groups may seize the opportunity to benefit from the 

wildlife trade. We have some evidence that the Lord’s Resistance Army and the 

Janjaweed have done so, for example, trading wildlife products for weapons or 

safe haven. 

For these reasons, the President issued an Executive order calling for a whole of 

government response to combat wildlife trafficking on July 1, 2013, and released the 

‘‘National Strategy for Combating Wildlife Trafficking’’ on February, 11, 2014. The 

strategy calls on agencies and departments to address wildlife trafficking by: (1) 

strengthening domestic and global enforcement; (2) reducing demand for illegal 

wildlife products; and (3) building international cooperation and public-private partnerships. 

INL is primarily involved in implementing the enforcement and international cooperation goals of the strategy through programmatic and diplomatic initiatives. We 

are not complete newcomers to the game—for over a decade, we have provided wildlife investigative training delivered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as part 

of our International Law Enforcement Academy (ILEA) program. But within the last 

year, with strong support from Congress, we have begun to greatly expand our programs, drawing on our experience in addressing other forms of transnational criminal activity. We have organized our work around four key areas. 

First, we will work with interested partners to strengthen legislative frameworks 

to make wildlife trafficking a serious crime with strong penalties in order to provide 

investigators and prosecutors the legal tools they need to put the traffickers behind 

bars. 

Second we will improve law enforcement and investigative capabilities—including 

intelligence, evidence collection and analysis, investigative skills and methods, and 

collaboration across agencies and governments—with our partner agencies to promote intelligence-led investigations and operations that strive not simply to pick up 

individual poachers but rather to better understand and begin to dismantle the 

organizations for which they work. 

Third, we will work to build prosecutorial and judicial capacities with our partners. As we have learned, rangers and police will not continue to apprehend the bad 

guys if they believe prosecutors or judges will just let them go. So as we improve 

legislative frameworks and offer up new tools, we need to ensure prosecutors and 

judges know how to use those tools effectively and creatively. 

And fourth, we will enhance cross-border law enforcement cooperation, particularly by working with the regional Wildlife Enforcement Networks (WENs) with 

other agencies. There is much that we need to learn about how wildlife trafficking 

organizations operate—but we do know that illegal wildlife products often make 

their way through multiple transit points as they move from supply states to 

demand markets. So we need to build alliances and processes across borders for 

sharing information and intelligence and collaborating on operations. 

The National Strategy stresses the need to marshal and strategically apply federal resources through a coordinated approach. Our work in these areas will be done 

on a bilateral and regional basis looking at priority areas and landscapes for U.S. 

foreign assistance in Latin America, Africa, and Asia. When the President 

announced the Executive order to Combat Wildlife Trafficking last July, he also 

announced that $10 million would support law enforcement efforts in Africa. Those 

funds, coupled with approximately $6 million in prior year funding, are supporting 

bilateral INL programming in Kenya and South Africa; regional capacity-building 

efforts in Africa and East Asia and the Pacific, and global programs, including 

efforts through INTERPOL, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime 

(UNODC), and the World Customs Organizations, all of which are part of the International Consortium for Combating Wildlife Crime (ICCWC). The approximately 

$15 million recently directed in FY 2014 International Narcotics Control and Law 

Enforcement (INCLE) funds will enable us to expand efforts begun or piloted using 

prior year resources, such as training for customs officers at ports of entry, prosecutorial training, and joint capacity-building/operational exercises across regions and 

continents. 

INL’s engagement extends beyond assistance programming. We also are tapping 

into tools developed to address transnational organized crime, to tackle the specific 

challenge of wildlife trafficking, including the Transnational Organized Crime 

Rewards Program, which Congress authorized in 2013. In November 2013, Secretary Kerry announced the first reward offer under the program of up to $1 million 

26 

for information leading to the dismantling of the Xaysavang Network. The 

Xaysavang Network, based in Laos and operating across Africa and Asia, facilitates 

the illegal trade of endangered elephants, rhinos, and other species. 

Through diplomatic outreach and engagement, we are building international consensus around the importance of dismantling wildlife trafficking networks. For 

example, at the U.N. Crime Commission in April 2013, the United States introduced 

a successful joint resolution with Peru encouraging governments around the world 

to treat wildlife trafficking as a ‘‘serious crime’’ pursuant to the U.N. Convention 

against Transnational Organized Crime. Making it a serious crime unlocks new 

opportunities for international law enforcement cooperation provided under the Convention, including mutual legal assistance, asset seizure and forfeiture, extradition, 

and other tools to hold criminals accountable for wildlife crime. The U.N. Economic 

and Social Council adopted the resolution in July 2013, further elevating wildlife 

trafficking as a major concern for the United Nations. These measures provide the 

mandate that we need, as members of a larger body of concerned nations, to harness 

our collective capabilities to learn more about these trafficking networks, share information, and collaborate on plans and programs that will undermine them. 

Another early success to which we can point is a recent month-long global law 

enforcement cooperative effort, known as ‘‘Cobra II,’’ that we helped to support. Participants from 28 countries, including representatives from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service with participation from USAID, executed this global operation in February 2014 to combat wildlife trafficking and poaching which resulted in more than 

400 arrests and 350 major seizures of wildlife and wildlife products across Africa, 

Asia, and the United States. The operation demonstrated to participants the benefits and results that can be achieved by working together and we will seek to build 

on the positive momentum it generated. 

Although we have more to learn about the links that exist between wildlife trafficking organizations and other transnational criminal groups, we do know that 

wildlife traffickers do not operate in a vacuum. Criminal organizations tend to use 

the same routes and shipping methods as smugglers of weapons, drugs, and counterfeits. They bribe the same customs officials. They deploy poachers in the same 

restive regions where terrorists and other criminals may sow instability and conflict 

and exploit weak institutions and porous borders. Money and corruption are common denominators of all forms of transnational organized crime, and wildlife trafficking is no exception. 

INL is looking at ways to connect our anticorruption and unit vetting programs 

used effectively in narcotics-producing regions, to support willing governments 

afflicted by wildlife trafficking. We are also examining the broader use of Presidential Proclamation (PP) 7750, which is used to bar entry into the United States 

of high-level corrupt officials and their family members, against wildlife traffickers 

and their enablers. 

Following the money is equally important. All illicit criminal networks need 

money to finance their activities and as illicit funds move through the international 

financial system, they can be detected and monitored. In addition to exercising leadership within the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), we are promoting and applying tools like asset recovery and forfeiture to combat transnational organized crime 

and money laundering. Through the FATF style regional body for Eastern and 

Southern Africa, we are working with international partners to uncover and counter 

money laundering and other illicit financial flows related to wildlife trafficking. We 

then will develop capacity-building projects to address gaps this study identifies. 

Illicit networks undercut the ability of law enforcement to protect citizens, deprive 

the states of vital revenues, promote corruption, and contribute to bad governance. 

But as organized crime has evolved and diversified, so has INL. Our programs are 

tailored to specific and cross cutting threats, including wildlife trafficking, to target 

the common facilitators of all types of crime. 

Thank you, Chairman Coons, Chairman Cardin, and distinguished members of 

the subcommittees for your attention to and support of our collective efforts to combat wildlife trafficking. I welcome your questions. 

Senator COONS. Thank you very much. 

We will now begin 7-minute rounds of questions, if my colleagues 

here—let me ask just an initial question of all four of you. And this 

is going to be a multipart question. 

Ambassador Garber, I appreciate your complimenting Congress 

on our leadership, but I am interested in hearing from each of you, 

in turn, What are the real opportunities for congressional action? 

27 

What are the things that we should be doing that will actually 

move this forward in a concrete way? Because each of you referenced, in passing, something, whether it is reauthorization or extension of the stamp, whether it is funding, whether it is strengthening the criminal penalties for particular actions. So, what congressional actions should we be taking promptly, if at all possible? 

Second, how are you spending the $45 million that Congress 

dedicated to wildlife trafficking? 

And how does your budget request for this year specifically deal 

with the—my third question—implementation plan for the national 

strategy? 

I think all of us spoke, in some way, in support of or complimenting the national strategy. But, it was released 3 months ago. 

I am eager to hear more about the timeline for an implementation 

strategy. 

So, what should we be doing? What are you doing? And how are 

we going to get to an implementation strategy? 

Ambassador. 

Ambassador GARBER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

In terms of what Congress can do, holding a hearing like this is 

so important because it shows that it is not just the administration 

that is concerned about this issue, but that the U.S. Congress is, 

too. 

We also have deeply appreciated the seed funding, from the position in my Bureau that we have received, for setting up the Wildlife Enforcement Networks that we were talking about earlier. And 

we have been able to leverage a very small bit of money into something that has real effect and has helped us to staunch what is 

going on in wildlife trafficking. 

And we also have deeply appreciated the support that we received for funding some of the international conventions that we 

are also partnering with, because this is an issue that the U.S. 

Government cannot solve alone. As you said in your opening remarks, this is something that requires partners and partnership, 

and it really requires a partnership between the administration 

and Congress, but also a partnership with the U.S. Government, 

with many other countries, with nongovernmental organizations, 

and with the private sector. And Congress is helpful in all of that. 

Senator COONS. Thank you, Ambassador. 

Director Ashe. 

Mr. ASHE. Thank you, Senator. 

I would say—I mentioned the stamp before. I think funding, in 

general, we have a $3 million budget increase that the President 

has proposed for our budget this year, which will allow us to put 

more capacity into our forensics lab in Ashland, OR. And that is 

going to provide us with the opportunity to provide technical support to range and transit countries to do a better job of enforcement 

and, ultimately, prosecution, which is key, support to put liaison 

positions into State Department embassies around the world so 

that we have eyes and ears on the ground, and we are coordinating 

at the embassy level with our other agency colleagues. 

I think ESA penalties, the penalties for trafficking can be improved; but perhaps more important, we can consider the possiVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:47 Jan 06, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 2ND SESSION\2014 ISSUE TE
28 

bility of using antiracketeering and other statutes to attack these 

syndicated criminal networks. 

And I would say accountability, that you should hold us accountable to actually accomplish the aspirations that are reflected in the 

President’s strategy, so perhaps maybe thinking about having us 

come back here this time next year and to see what we have been 

able to accomplish during that period of time. 

Senator COONS. I like that idea. I welcome anyone who seeks 

more congressional accountability. [Laughter.] 

Senator COONS. Assistant Administrator Postel. 

Mr. POSTEL. Thank you, Senator. 

To add to the list two or three things, in terms of opportunities, 

one is, on your CODELs, to raise the issue with the host-country 

governments. I think it is very important that they hear lots of 

voices. They, of course, hear from all of us, but also hearing from 

all of you about the importance of these issues and how good governance is part of what is needed to have success. 

Second, if and when you ever have interactions with the various 

U.S. companies involved in transit and transport, we have some 

partnerships—for instance, with Delta and other folks—but, you 

know, how does this stuff get moved around? We need those partnerships and engagement from CEOs of a number of different types 

of companies involved. 

Also, the conversation with local constituents. As you noted, Mr. 

Chairman, the second-biggest market is the United States. And I 

am not sure people always understand what harm comes from 

some of their private activities. So, visibility on that is very useful. 

And, of course, we very much appreciate the fundings and the 

support you give, in terms of directives for budgets, not only on 

specific issues, but the overall top line to the agency, which then 

gives us the wherewithal to accomplish all those things. 

In terms of our spending—of the FY 14 funds that I mentioned, 

65 percent will be for Africa, 25 percent will go to Asia, and 10 percent will be for more global goods, like the tech challenge analysis 

of transit routes and things like that. 

In terms of FY 15, we will definitely be looking—the request is 

based on the concept that we will make adjustments. And we are 

already starting to pivot, even without the implementation plan, 

because of moving more toward some other countries, which maybe 

we were not as active in, but they are demand hotspots or supply 

hotspots. 

Thank you. 

Senator COONS. Thank you. 

DAS [Deputy Assistant Secrertary] Darby. 

Ms. DARBY. I do not have too much to add, in terms of the ways 

that Congress can be supportive of this effort beyond what my colleagues have said, which I certainly agree with. 

And I think—to reinforce the domestic awareness points, I think, 

Chairman Coons, the Opportunity Africa Conference that you held 

in Delaware earlier this year, and the opportunity that you gave 

us to speak at that conference on the issue of wildlife trafficking, 

interacting with the members of your audience reinforced how interested people are in this issue, and yet how they do not have all 

of the facts at their disposal. And I think fora like that are a really 

29 

important way that we can get the message out to domestic audiences. And I think the elementary school students who were in the 

front row and asking questions is a great sign of future generations’ engagement on this issue, because clearly, while we are very 

engaged right now, and we want this to remain a priority for the 

years to come, addressing this in a comprehensive way is going to 

be a generational challenge, and we need to make sure it stays on 

the radar. 

Senator COONS. That is right. Thank you. I believe it is a longterm challenge. And one of the things that made that panel particularly successful at the conference in Delaware was a Delawarian who is an iconic filmmaker who has dedicated a great deal 

of time to documenting the hard work needed to save elephants in 

Africa. We also had a Namibian former—his father was a poacher, 

and he is involved in community-based conservation. So, it was a 

great panel. And thank you again for coming to Delaware for that. 

Let me turn to Senator Flake. 

Senator Flake. 

Senator FLAKE. Well, thank you. 

Thank you for your testimony. 

I have spent about 3 years of my life in southern Africa, been in 

countries where things are going well. Namibia, certainly since I 

was there, has had good success in maintaining these conservation 

efforts, with a lot of help from the United States. And I have seen 

Zimbabwe, as well, where I spent time in the early 1980s, go the 

other direction. 

But, the first question, just in terms of budget. CRS notes that, 

between all the agencies that are spending money in this regard— 

and it is about $617 million enacted in FY 2015 to combat wildlife 

trafficking—in your estimation, is the coordination what it should 

be between agencies? Could we better spend the money that we are 

spending? 

I know that when I meet with NGOs, some of them are critical 

about where some of the money is spent, in terms of tamping down 

demand or other conservation efforts. I realize we are all government witnesses here, and all of you rely on, you know, appropriations from us on that regard, but I would like to get your opinion 

on how we can—and have we made some moves in the past couple 

of years to better utilize the numbers that we are talking about 

here? 

First Ms. Garber. 

Ms. DARBY. Thank you very much—oh, I am sorry. 

Senator FLAKE. Go ahead. 

Ambassador GARBER. Thank you very much for that question. 

Part of what we are trying to do with the national strategy as we 

develop the implementation plan is do just that. We are trying to 

take a very strategic look at what we are doing to make sure that 

it is really complementary and reinforcing across the agencies. And 

so, as we are developing that plan, we are trying to look at where 

we can use the money most wisely to make sure that we are implementing the strategy effectively. Because, absolutely, Senator, we 

can always do better, and that is something that we are really very 

much aware of, particularly right now, in a tight fiscal time. 

So, thank you. 

30 

Senator FLAKE. Will I get the same answer from everybody on 

that? We are doing better with the strategy? 

Mr. ASHE. We certainly can. And I would just highlight a few 

things. Customs and Border patrol is an essential partner in this 

enterprise. And I think all of us are working with U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection to institute things like the Commercial Targeting and Analysis Center, so 10 Federal agencies working together to expand our abilities to target illegal trade, in general, but 

certainly illegal wildlife shipment. The International Trade Data 

System is going to be an important new evolution for us in working 

together to create a single window for trade data so that we can 

both facilitate legal trade and target illegal trade. And so, I think 

we are working, as we never have before, together, but we certainly 

can do better. 

Senator FLAKE. Mr. Ashe, the ban that Fish and Wildlife Service 

put on elephant trophies from Zimbabwe and Tanzania, some are 

critical. Safari Club and others have criticized that, saying we are 

taking away money that is used for conservation. What is your feeling there? Is this prompting Zimbabwe and Tanzania to take measures where they better regulate what goes out? Or is this, over the 

long term—and I know this is being reviewed for next year. Can 

you talk about that ban and what you hope to achieve there? 

Mr. ASHE. Sure. I think that, first of all, I would say, you mentioned Namibia, and what we need to do, number one, is reward 

countries that have good wildlife management programs. And last 

year there was a lot of controversy about the potential of a black 

rhino being harvested in Namibia and potentially, you know, imported the trophy, imported into the United States. And my position on that was, we need to stand behind countries like Namibia, 

who have—one-third of the black rhinos that remain in the world 

are in Namibia. They manage them very well. We need to stand 

behind those countries. And when they can allow harvest, we need 

to support that. 

I think hunting is not—well-regulated, well-managed hunting is 

not what is driving this crisis. But, we need to ensure that hunting 

remains a well-regulated aspect of wildlife management. 

And from the perspective of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

right now in Tanzania, we are seeing extremely disturbing signs of 

devastation of elephant populations in the Selous, which is one of 

the strongholds in Tanzania. In Zimbabwe, we simply do not have 

the information that is necessary for us to make those determinations. 

But, we are talking to both countries. And it is a matter of getting better information and putting in place the mechanisms that 

need to be there to ensure that hunting is a sustainable process, 

that it is free from corruption, and the revenues from hunting are 

going back into conservation of the species. We expect to be able 

to see hunting resume in Zimbabwe and Tanzania in the future. 

Senator FLAKE. Thank you. 

It seems as if it is going to be tough, really, to work with these 

countries and—because, I mean, some of them see the economic 

benefit of protecting the herds that they have. They certainly do in 

countries like Namibia, and the whole country benefits from the 

economic value of tourism and everything else. But, that is only 

31 

until the value of poaching, you know, exceeds that value, at least 

to individuals and poachers. So, it is the demand side that really 

has to be affected. 

Like I said, there are some NGOs that are critical that we are 

not spending more money on the demand side, tamping down demand, or trying to. There are some NGOs that are working in 

China, in particular, working with public officials, with celebrities. 

How would you rate the efforts that are going on right now among 

the NGO community to try to address the demand side in China 

and Southeast Asia? I do not know who is best to address that. 

Mr. POSTEL. Thank you for the question, Senator. I think a couple of people might speak on it. 

But, we feel that the involvement, engagement of NGOs is very 

important in this area and with the citizens, who may not even be 

part of that. There was a large meeting of people in London, in 

February, that the Ambassador and I and a number of other people 

went to, and there was a whole session, where activists were presenting evidence about what was working in China and other countries. And interestingly, the most effective of all was something not 

done by an organization, but a Chinese actress, who tweeted a 

photo of what it looks like when one of these animals is slaughtered, and had 500,000 people see that. 

There are some very effective and sophisticated things that I 

have seen the NGOs are doing; some of that is with our support 

or other agency colleagues, but some of it is on their own. And so, 

I see a lot of progress being made, but also just by regular citizens. 

Senator FLAKE. Does anybody want to follow up? I am out of 

time, but go ahead. 

Ambassador GARBER. What I would just say is that, as you said, 

Senator, addressing demand is a really complex and long-term 

issue, and the factors are very different in each one of these countries. It is not a one-size-fit-all answer. And we certainly recognize 

that we, as the U.S. Government, do not have all the solutions, all 

the answers to this particular question. The NGOs are doing really 

excellent work. What works in one place does not necessarily work 

effectively in another. But, that is why we are really reaching out 

to have a conversation with the nongovernmental organization 

community, with the private sector, and with other governments, 

because, in some places, really the government taking this on and 

showing that it does not support this, showing leadership themselves, can also be critical to changing these patterns of behavior. 

So, it is a very complicated approach. We are working an awful 

lot on the demand side, very hard across the U.S. Government and 

with a variety of partners. But, it has to be a key part of our focus, 

because the demand, in part, is really what is driving this. 

Senator FLAKE. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator COONS. Senator Cardin. 

Senator CARDIN. Well, again, I thank all the witnesses. And, you 

are correct, this hearing is a clear indication that the Congress is 

very much focused on this issue. And it is a continuing interest. Today’s record will help us in trying to figure out where we can be 

the most helpful to deal with this illicit trade. 

32 

It is very interesting, on your point that the value of the rhino 

horn is more than gold. That points out, as you have all said, you 

need a comprehensive strategy. You also have to deal with public 

awareness and demand, you have to deal with supply. But, at that 

price, it shows that we are doing something about the supply, for 

it to be that precious, from the point of view of the trade. 

But, I want to get on to the demand side for one moment. You 

have all talked about this a little bit. But, my information says 

that, in Asia, rhino horns, particularly, but also elephant tusks, are 

looked at as a luxury item and a social status item, and that many 

of the people who desire and want and acquire these items do not 

realize it is illegal and do not realize the impact it has on the species. So, yes, you are absolutely correct, when we bring this attention to the public, they become outraged, they get involved, and 

there is political support to take more dramatic action. But, it 

seems like we have a challenge in Asia, that we have not yet 

reached the mainstream of those who are capable of purchasing 

these products and wanting these products, because it looks like it 

is still perceived as a status symbol to have these products in your 

possession. 

Can you just share with us whether we are taking steps to try 

to change that within the demand countries, and what we can do 

in the United States to help in that regard? 

Whoever wants to grab that. 

Mr. ASHE. I will start, Senator, and—I think that we are taking 

steps, and I am sure my colleagues will have things to add. 

But, for my part, I think the ban on commercial trade in the 

United States is an essential first step. When we talk to our colleagues in other countries, they look right back at us across the 

table and say, ‘‘Well, you are doing the same thing that we are 

doing.’’ And when you see this elephant tusk, these two products 

here, they—each of those represents a dead elephant. And, you 

know, part of the education that needs to take place in countries 

like China and others in Southeast Asia is a cultural belief that the 

elephants do not die when the tusks are taken, that, some cases, 

they just fall off, like antlers fall off of a deer. And so, an essential 

first step is telling people, ‘‘These are dead—these represent dead 

animals.’’ 

And so, in the United States, we need to lead by example, as we 

have done so many times in the past on issues like this. We need 

to stop domestic trade in ivory, as an example of U.S. resolve and 

leadership. 

Senator CARDIN. Can someone respond to the question on reaching the market in Asia so that the public is aware that if they, indeed, have these products, it is illegal and affecting the diversity 

of species? Are those efforts underway? And why are they not more 

effective? 

Ambassador GARBER. Let me take that on first, and then perhaps 

Assistant Administrator Postel can add some more. 

Yes, those efforts are very much underway. And it is part of 

what we are talking about with these governments. Chairman, you 

mentioned the Strategic and Economic Dialogue with China, and 

we have put wildlife trafficking on the agenda of that particular 

forum. And one of the agenda items that we are having on that is 

33 

conversations about demand reduction. And, on the very first 

Worldwide Life Day, which took place this past March 3, we 

worked with the Government of China and agreed to do some joint 

activities as many of our embassies around the world, particularly 

in Asia, did, as well. And the focus of these was on education. 

Many of them were activities with schools. In China, they did two 

full days of activities, both with the Embassy and also the Government doing its own thing throughout the country to try and get out 

this message. 

I have also recently learned that the Chinese Government, when 

it has citizens traveling abroad, sends SMS messages to their cell 

phones when they arrive in countries in Africa, reminding them 

that it is illegal to purchase—you know, against purchasing illegal 

ivory or rhino horn. And this is really steps, I think, particularly 

in China, where many look to the government for leadership. The 

fact that we are seeing a change in tone and some activities is really important. 

Is it done yet? No. Are they all the way there? Absolutely not. 

We are going to be asking them to follow our leadership on implementing an ivory ban. That would be a very important step, should 

they agree to do so. There is a lot more that we need to be doing. 

But, we are making this a point of emphasis with many of the 

governments throughout Asia. We have put it in the APEC Leaders 

Declaration, we are raising it in ASEAN, so we are driving very, 

very hard on the demand question. 

But, Eric may want to talk a little bit about some of the specific 

programs—— 

Senator CARDIN. I want to—I think U.S. leadership is critically 

important, and that we have got to lead by example, we have got 

to do the things that Mr. Ashe has talked about. But, I would be 

interested as to those countries in Asia where we think are—where 

the markets are particularly strong—a strategy for us to use every 

means we can to help provide further education to people of that 

country. Because I think most people would be shocked to know 

that this is illegal, and who own it, for status, and that it is—as 

you point out, Mr. Ashe, it is dead animals and affecting the health 

of that species. 

Mr. Postel. 

Mr. POSTEL. Thank you, Senator. 

To add to your discussion, a couple other places, first of all, involving sharks and shark-fin soup. I am sure you know that the 

Chinese Government has banned that from their official functions. 

In Thailand, we have got a partnership going. The number of partners is climbing, but right now we are up to 102 restaurants and 

hotels that have agreed to keep it off their menus. So, we are trying to work in, in Thailand, in ways that reduce demands for some 

of the species. 

One of the areas that we are pivoting to more, which is one of 

these hotspots—and under the increased funding, we are able to do 

that as we are—for the first time, in 2014, we are going to move 

money into Vietnam, into our programs there, because that is one 

of the other areas where there is a lot of demand issues and misconceptions. And so, that is some of the pivot that is going on, in 

accordance with the strategy and just the overall surge in this 

34 

problem to try to address demand, because we fully agree with you, 

we have got to work on that. 

Senator CARDIN. Ms. Darby. 

Ms. DARBY. As part of our implementation of the U.S. strategy 

to combat transnational organized crime, we have been engaged 

with the U.N. Office of Drugs and Crime on a series of public-service announcements to raise awareness about specific types of 

transnational organized crime activity among particular audiences. 

So, as part of this series, we just funded a PSA that is focused 

on wildlife trafficking, that features Chinese actress Li Bingbing, 

that is now airing in Asia and should reach millions in Asia as part 

of this awareness-raising effort. 

Senator CARDIN. Let me ask you one more question, if I might, 

and it is a final question for me, and that is: Your agency deals 

with all types of trafficking, including wildlife trafficking. Is there 

a similarity between the type of illegal activities that take place in 

wildlife trafficking that is supporting crime syndicates, is the 

money being used to support other types of illegal activities? Do we 

find that wildlife trafficking is similar to what we see with arm 

dealers and drug dealers and human traffickers? 

Ms. DARBY. I think the biggest things they have in common is 

that they are motivated by the same thing, which is money, and 

they take advantage of the same facilitators. They take advantage 

of corrupt officials, they take advantage of document forgers, they 

take advantage of lax customs enforcement, they take advantage of 

bankers and attorneys who help facilitate the illegal trade. 

Right now, we have not seen a lot of evidence of drug-trafficking 

groups getting involved in wildlife trafficking, for example, or vice 

versa. We are obviously alert to that possibility in the future. And, 

frankly, the gaps in our knowledge with respect to how wildlife 

trafficking organizations operate, we have significant gaps. And 

one of the reasons why we are focused on evidence collection, investigative skills, and information analysis in our capacity-building 

programs in both Africa and Asia is that we need to build up the 

knowledge that we have about these organizations. Right now, 

what we see is—a customs official or police at an airport may pick 

up a shipment, and they arrest the person who is associated with 

that illegal transit of the wildlife product. What we need to do is 

go a level deeper. And what we are really focused on doing, in INL, 

is trying to then mine that for the intelligence that you need to be 

able to get to who is really driving this trade, not just who is a courier, if you will. 

So, that is a major focus of what we are—— 

Senator CARDIN. So, we still do not have enough information. I 

would be very interested in how your findings proceed on that. So, 

thank you. 

Ms. DARBY. Absolutely. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator COONS. Thank you, Senator Cardin. 

Let me just continue along that line, if I can. I would be interested in how we are working with African countries to strengthen 

their abilities—borders, intelligence. And I am interested in what 

role you think the Department of Defense and the intelligence community will be playing in the implementation of the national stratVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:47 Jan 06, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 2ND SESSION\2014 ISSUE TE
35 

egy, and how you see the similarity with drug trafficking, human 

trafficking, other sorts of illicit transnational criminal activity, how 

that requires some more active involvement from law enforcement, 

DOD, intelligence. 

Ms. DARBY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I think the way we approach the wildlife trafficking trade is very 

similar to the way that we approach other forms of transnational 

criminal activity. And I think the focus that the INL Bureau is taking on this issue is very much informed by our experience working 

on other forms of transnational organized crime, including drugs, 

which is the need to focus on the laws. And I think, as one of my 

colleagues—the point one of my colleagues made, it is not just 

about the penalties, it is also about having conspiracy statutes and 

other tools that investigators and prosecutors can use to vigorously 

pursue these cases. 

Investigative skills, training for both the people who are on the 

front lines—park rangers, et cetera—in how to collect and preserve 

evidence, and then training for investigators who can take that evidence and make some links on the basis of that evidence, as well 

as training prosecutors and judges on how to use new legal tools 

to effectively go after the trade. And then getting countries to work 

both within their own country across agencies, just as our national 

strategy compels us to do, we want other countries to do the same, 

and we have engaged our Chiefs of Mission overseas to try to get 

our embassies involved in encouraging countries to develop their 

own national strategies. And things like the attache ́s from the Fish 

and Wildlife Service are very helpful in that regard. And then 

working across borders, because, obviously, the animals do not 

know any borders, criminal activity knows no borders. And so, operations like COBRA II, where we bring those countries together. 

And, you know, it is notable for both the seizures and the arrests 

that stem from a particular operation like that, but, I think even 

more important, in terms of long-term impact, is getting these 

countries to develop better trust among themselves and to see the 

rewards that cooperation can bring to them. And that is something 

we are really trying to foster. 

Senator COONS. Thank you. 

If I might, Assistant Administrator Postel, one of the places that 

I think we have really seen engagement at the grassroots level, effective NGO, and national leadership work is in community-based 

conservation. You referenced a great example in Namibia. Now, 

what is the role and the efficacy of community-based conservation 

approaches in incentivizing wildlife conservation? And where else 

can we replicate this, beyond Namibia? What role is USAID taking 

in that? First. 

Second, comment—tell me a little bit more about the USAID 

wildlife tech challenge. I would be interested in hearing where that 

is headed and what impacts you expect from it. 

Mr. POSTEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

So, conservancies are in existence and being created in a number 

of other countries. I was in northern Kenya, looking at some that 

are achieving good results. And, you know, what it takes to make 

that a success is a long-term investment. It has got to have a good 

policy-enabling environment. But, you really see that it has other 

36 

spinoff effects because you are talking about creating incomes and 

a stake in the people who live there in preserving what they have, 

as opposed to the other model, where they have a stake in killing 

what is there to have livelihoods. So, if they can have good livelihoods from what is there, they have got a stake in keeping it 

around for all time. So, we see the successes, and there is a number of other countries that have been looking at that; and, even 

within Kenya and other places, it is expanding. 

One more thing on that, Senator. The one challenge we have is 

that these conservancies are good at dealing with more local poaching. But, when you have a armed group with serious technology 

and large numbers, then they are sort of outnumbered, and that 

is part of the thing that we have to tackle, in combination with 

host countries and with their police forces and so forth, because the 

local trackers and rangers, then, are completely outnumbered. So, 

that is a current-day challenge to conservancies. 

As far as the tech challenge, there are a number of people that 

have worked on technological solutions to some of these problems. 

For instance, there is a whole consortium of organizations and U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife service and ourselves are working with North 

Carolina Zoo and others on this open-source software that—the initiatives led by the North Carolina Zoo to help people with tracking 

and other things. 

So, there are existing efforts, but what we are hoping to do, consistent with the Global Development Lab that you are such a 

strong supporter of, is to tap into all those other people around our 

country who may not, day in, day out, work on wildlife trafficking, 

but have special skills in—whether it is DNA or forensics or in 

tracking or GIS—to get some of their energy. So, we are still putting this together, but we will have partners, such as Google and 

National Geographic and others, and will be reaching out to all 

Americans to offer their ideas to solve some of these problems in 

several different areas. 

Senator COONS. Thank you. 

Director Ashe, in your written testimony, you said—and I do not 

mean to take this out of context, but it was memorable—‘‘Working 

with shoestring budgets and a special-agent workforce that has not 

grown since the late 1970s, the service has disrupted large-scale 

trafficking in contraband wildlife commodities that range from elephant ivory and rhino horn to sturgeon caviar and sea turtle skin 

and shell.’’ Wow. Well written. A good reminder that we may have 

been underfunding enforcement capabilities for a long time. 

How could we better invest in Fish and Wildlife Service? And 

what progress are you seeing from the two attache ́s that have been 

referred to before, that, if memory serves, are in Bangkok and 

Nairobi? And how do you see that as a promising model for the 

long term? 

Mr. ASHE. Well, thank you, Senator. Yes, we have just over 200 

special agents in our law enforcement force. We have had as many 

as 230, I believe, in the past. But, we find ourselves, today, about 

where we were in 1978, in terms of our law enforcement capacity. 

Of course, we have learned more, we are more sophisticated, we 

have great partners. So, I am optimistic about the future. But, we 

simply need additional resources. 

37 

I think the liaison positions in U.S. embassies will be a quantum 

leap forward as we have people in country that are developing direct relationships, as I think has been noted here. Trust is a key 

element as we do law enforcement on the international scale. People share information with people that they trust. And so, having 

our people there, able to build those trust-based relationships, coordinating more effectively amongst partner organizations, and 

doing on-the-ground training. So, as Ms. Darby said, not just helping people on the ground, but—with evidence collection—but helping in prosecution and—I think will be a key ingredient in success. 

So, we have just begun that, we just stationed our first liaison 

in—at the Embassy in Bangkok. By the end of this year we hope 

to have five, total, and we have additional funding in our FY15 

budget for more positions. And so, we hope to see that as a key ingredient of success in the years ahead. 

Senator COONS. Terrific. Thank you, Director. 

Senator. 

Senator FLAKE. Thanks. 

Let me just return to—a minute on the demand side. We are 

spending considerable amount of money. I just want to know, with 

the new strategy that we have and working across agencies to 

make it more efficient, how are we spending that money? Does Fish 

and Wildlife have a budget that it uses to then contract with NGOs 

or spend directly or do public-private partnerships? I am just 

speaking of the—on the demand side. Does AID, does State? Give 

me a sense of how that is going to work now. Are you all going to 

be contracting with your favorite NGOs? Or how is it going to 

work? 

I see you smiling, Ms. Garber. Can you shed some light on that? 

Ambassador GARBER. I think that is exactly what we are trying 

to look at in the implementation strategy, is to make sure that we 

are very coordinated on this, because we want to make sure that 

it is very integrated, going forward. 

Senator FLAKE. Right. Well, you are going to be spending money 

this year. 

Ambassador GARBER. Right. And—— 

Senator FLAKE. And will—this year, will it be coordinated? 

Ambassador GARBER. Yes. We are working together as we never 

have before, so absolutely. But, there—I would like to ask my colleagues to talk about their specific pots of money, because, in my 

Bureau, the amount that we have for this kind of thing we use in 

very small amounts. We are talking, in this year’s budget, some 

small grants proposals for some of our environmental hubs, maybe 

20,000 apiece—— 

Senator FLAKE. Okay. 

Ambassador GARBER [continuing]. Totaling 60,000. And the level 

of my colleagues down the row is a little bit more than that. So—— 

Senator FLAKE. Right. If you could just each tell me how you are 

going to do that—on the demand side, how you are going to spend 

it. 

Mr. ASHE. I will say that, in the Fish and Wildlife Service, we 

have direct funding through our international program, and we 

have asked for increased funding. Again, part of that will be demand reduction. I will have to get back to you for the record in 

38 

terms of what, specifically, we are doing. But, we work very closely 

with both USAID and the State Department. And I think what we 

should do—to be able to do for you is to paint a picture for how 

we are going to use that money most effectively, particularly on the 

demand side. 

Senator FLAKE. All right. Well, what I think would concern me 

is if U.S. Fish and Wildlife, if AID and, to some extent, State—it 

is not as big—but if you each have your own program officers that 

deal with these issues, and we—you just do not get any economies 

of scale there, and you are not able to—a lot of the money is wasted in implementation rather than the end product. Do you see a 

danger in that? Or this strategy that we have, is it going to solve 

that, or not? 

Mr. ASHE. I see a—there certainly is a danger in that, but I 

would say, I think this is a pretty small community of people, and 

I think that my experience is that we get the maximum amount 

of muscle for every dollar that we spend, because it is a small community of people and they work very closely together, both across 

government and across NGO organizations. So, I would be surprised to see, you know, that we are spending demand reduction— 

our demand-reduction efforts are duplicative or working at cross 

purposes. 

Senator FLAKE. Thank you. I would appreciate that. 

Mr. POSTEL. Senator, I will add one example. In the case of Vietnam, which will be a new one, after the CN and 653(a) clear, that 

money will move into the field, and then our team in Vietnam will 

work with the Embassy and have consultation with government, 

civil society, and other people to finalize the key priorities. 

And, as part of that, we also look at the various tools that need 

to be brought to bear. And, if necessary, we will sit with U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service and move money to them because of all the 

expertise there, or to other parts of Department of Interior and so 

forth. And that is—a lot of coordination occurs in the field as people are finalizing exactly what is the most strategic thing on which 

to spend money. 

So, I think we always have to be on guard. I agree with your 

premise. And so, we can never take our eye off that ball, but we 

also have a lot of people try to work hard to coordinate, and the 

strategy is really enforcing that. 

Senator FLAKE. Ms. Darby. 

Ms. DARBY. I would add that, while our Bureau does not play a 

big role in the demand reduction side of the house, this was one 

of our concerns across the board. How do we, as newer players in 

the mix, avoid duplicating or stepping over things that our colleagues were already doing? And so, our working-level folks who 

are on these issues are getting together every 2 weeks to make 

sure that we are identifying gaps, we are identifying priorities, and 

that we are having discussions about who is best placed to address 

certain needs across the board, not just demand-reduction-related, 

but across the board. 

Senator FLAKE. Well, I would say in closing, there are best practices; we know what campaigns work. I hope that we are looking 

out there and spending our money on those campaigns rather than 

simply always coordinating with that money, whether it is with 

39 

embassy staff or others. And when we know what works, if there 

is something out there that is working—I know it is specific to each 

country. What works in Vietnam may not be working in China or 

elsewhere. But, I hope that, when we see those things that are 

working, that is where the money goes, and less money actually coordinating to get there, if you know what I mean. 

Thank you. 

Senator CARDIN. Well, once again, I thank you all, not just for 

your testimony, but what you do every day on these issues and so 

many other issues. 

I want to follow up my first round of questioning in which we 

talked about the similarities between trafficking in wildlife and 

other forms of trafficking, and that there is a lot of common ground 

here, from the point of view of corruption, the importance of custom 

and border issues, law enforcement, and treating this as a crime 

and not just as a casual activity. It reminds me of some of our discussions, many years ago, on what we could do to be effective in 

stopping trafficking in persons. And in one of the hearings, we had 

a great deal of discussion about best practices and with law enforcement and dealing with the fact that you have originating countries, transit countries, and destination countries. In a way, that is 

the same problems that we have on trafficking in wildlife. And one 

of the tools that we developed—with the State Department taking 

the lead, I might say—was a Trafficking in Person report that we 

get every year that rates the performance of every country—including the United States—in dealing with these issues. Because each 

country is different, as Senator Flake has pointed out. One size 

does not fit all, here. 

So, I am just exploring whether a similar type of an effort would 

be useful. Let me just say, by way of an example, that report is 

very much in my office at all times. When Ambassadors from other 

countries visit, I know exactly where they stand on the TIP report 

and what they need to do to improve. So, it is on the agenda of just 

about every meeting we have, particularly if the country is on one 

of our watch lists. 

So, it seems to me it might be helpful to have some type of matrix developed as to expectations in dealing with wildlife. There 

may not be as many countries involved that are critical to this task 

as it is in trafficking in persons, but it might be a useful guide. I 

can assure you that embassies lobby us to move in a more positive 

direction on the TIP report, so they are very mindful of that. We 

might be able to achieve a similar result with a Trafficking in 

Wildlife report. 

I welcome your thoughts. We have two representatives from the 

State Department here. What do you think? Helpful, or not? Would 

it work for you? 

Ms. DARBY. You know, I think the ‘‘name and shame’’ exercises 

can be helpful in some contexts. I do not think we, frankly, have 

had discussions about whether we think it would be helpful in this 

context. 

I think one thing that we have seen as a result of the national 

strategy in the executive order is a lot of engagement by our embassies and far more reporting than we ever saw in the past, in 

terms of the unique challenges countries face, what is the scope of 

40 

the wildlife trafficking problem in a given country, what is the political will to combat it, what specific engagements with these countries would be helpful, what partner nations we need to engage. 

So—— 

Senator CARDIN. But, it is somewhat haphazard today. I do not 

question the sincerity of trying to advance, in a positive way, this 

issue. What the TIP report has done is institutionalized it. It is 

now part of the agenda because it is there. And wildlife is not at 

the same level as humans in trafficking, from the point of view of 

visibility and attention. I do not expect we will get there. As serious as trafficking in wildlife is, when you traffic a person, it is a 

much more horrendous crime. I recognize that. 

But, the process, here, of trying to institutionalize concern is 

something that may not require the same amount of effort that we 

put into TIP report. But, to develop protocols and to start rating 

countries on how well they are meeting those protocols, to me, 

might be a valuable tool to help you in your work. 

Ambassador GARBER. As DAS Darby was saying, it is something 

that we have not fully considered in the context of doing this, but 

one of the things that many of—what we find that is happening 

since the President’s strategy came out and since Congress has 

owned an interest in this as well, is that we are seeing a change 

in the attitudes of many countries on this. And I think China is 

a good example. I think if you had said, 3 years ago, that China 

would sit down as part of our premier bilateral policy dialogue, put 

wildlife on the agenda, people would have probably laughed you out 

of the room. Not you, Senator, of course, but me, if I had suggested 

that; let me be clear. 

But—and I do think that we have many multilateral environment agreements and efforts, such as CITES, that also are forums 

for discussion on how countries are doing on certain areas, and setting criteria. We are trying to introduce the issue of wildlife trafficking into more forums. So, setting those standards in APEC, trying to bring it to ASEAN. We approached the African Union about 

having wildlife trafficking as an issue on their agenda. They have 

been receptive to it, and technical discussions are going along those 

lines. 

And what I would be cautious about on—at this point, as immediately saying yes, is because some of those efforts may turn out 

to be very effective, and you would not want to undercut them. But, 

it is something that I think we would need to evaluate and think 

about, and it is an interesting suggestion. 

Senator CARDIN. Okay. Thank you. 

I just want to make sure I get this into the record. We are going 

to keep the committee record open until next Wednesday, close of 

business, for additional comments or questions that might be 

asked. Just wanted everyone to be aware of that. 

And I really do appreciate what you do every day. This is a subject matter that we are trying to figure out how Congress can be 

more helpful in carrying out your responsibility. 

I do think it has gotten a lot more visibility. And that is to the 

credit of the people that are in this room. And I compliment you 

all. 

41 

I do think there is a lot of private-sector interest in helping us 

in this regard, which makes our job a little bit easier when we have 

that type of private-sector interest. I just think that we need to 

find more effective ways to develop expected practices. 

And the thing that I think troubled me the most in the background that was prepared by my staff is the fact that, in so many 

places, owning a piece of ivory or a piece of rhino horn is considered to be a status symbol, considered to be a sign of success. And 

to me, that is something that we should be able to overcome, and 

we need to develop strategies to let people know that having such 

a product in your home is contributing to crime and contributing 

to the devastation of species. 

Thank you. 

Senator COONS. Thank you, Senator. 

I have just a few more questions, if I might, which I hope continues to demonstrate the very real interest of Members of Congress in this topic. 

I have never forgotten the first time I encountered an elephant 

that had been slaughtered by poachers. This was on the banks of 

the Ewaso Nyiro River in northern Kenya in 1984. It is just an 

awful sight. And, you are right, it is easy to forget that there are 

many people who believe that collecting ivory does not contribute 

to killing elephants. And whatever we can do to help spread that 

message globally and domestically, I think, is important for us to 

continue to work together on. 

Ambassador Garber, demand reduction in the United States is 

an important piece of this. I would be interested if you and Director 

Ashe would comment on what you think is our path forward on demand reduction in the United States, reducing the consumption of, 

the collection of, the purchasing of illicit and illegal wildlife products. 

Director. 

Mr. ASHE. So, I think we have taken the first steps, which is 

using our full authority under the African Elephant Conservation 

Act and the Endangered Species Act. We have one more step to 

take, which is to revise our Section (4)(d) rule under the Endangered Species Act, and that will prohibit all trade, except for documented antiques, things that are over 100 years old, that—and so, 

we will, effectively, have banned all commercial trade domestically 

in the United States in international commerce, in—and interstate 

and intrastate commerce. 

So, we have the ability to do that, we need to do that. I think 

what you will hear, and what we will hear, are many people making arguments that sound like, ‘‘Well, these products just have a 

de minimis amount of ivory.’’ And if you see a product, and it has 

a little piece of ivory, it is the same as that entire tusk. It represents a dead animal. And we cannot—our law enforcement 

agents cannot distinguish—you know, this product over here could 

be 100 years old, it could be 100 days old. You cannot distinguish 

between them without very sophisticated genetic analysis, and 

sometimes even without—even genetic analysis cannot determine 

the age of a product like that. 

So, we need to make a difficult decision, because we are asking 

our trading partners to make difficult decisions. Culturally, ecoVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:47 Jan 06, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 2ND SESSION\2014 ISSUE TE
42 

nomically, they are difficult decisions. So, again, I think it is important for us to show leadership and show resolve. And we have the 

tools. Legally, we have the tools to implement a near-complete ban. 

The Endangered Species Act explicitly authorizes trade in antiques. And so, that is the one piece of trade that we cannot ban, 

administratively; but, you know, legitimate, documented antiques 

that are over 100 years old are not—again, are not the cause of the 

problem. So, I think we have the ability to do it. We need to do 

it. 

Senator COONS. I am interested in how conflict is fueling some 

of the poaching crisis, particularly in Central Africa. And, Ambassador, I would be interested in your comment on how the interplay 

between instability, political and security instability situations in 

countries like Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of the 

Congo, South Sudan—are accelerating a wildlife poaching problem, 

both because of the free flow of weapons and then the lack of controlled borders and increasing number of folks who are, frankly, 

desperate for any way to generate revenue. 

And then, Deputy Assistant Secretary Darby, you made a passing reference to some evidence that al-Shabaab and the Janjaweed 

and the Lord’s Resistance Army are trafficking in wildlife products. 

I would be interested in your comment on whether—how reliable 

is that? Is this just conjecture, or do we have any evidence? 

Ambassador Garber. 

Ambassador GARBER. Yes, political insecurity and elephant 

poaching really have been going hand-in-hand. And with fragile 

states with very porous borders in which there is not very clear 

governance and a lot of monitoring, it gives free passage, so to 

speak, for many of the bad actors that are involved in this trade 

to go in. For instance, in the Central African Forest, elephant population has been extremely vulnerable and has seen a two-third decline in its population since 2002. 

Working very closely with our mission to the United Nations, in 

January we were able to get, in the Security Council resolutions 

that were addressing some of these conflicts, also wildlife traffickers to be a sanctioned element in those particular resolutions. 

So, by this, we are trying to demonstrate that, even though these 

fragile states may not have the governance that would stop this, 

that the international community is working hand-in-hand together 

to try and prevent this from going on. 

Senator COONS. Thank you, Ambassador. 

Deputy Assistant Secretary Darby. 

Ms. DARBY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

While we have some evidence of involvement of some terrorist organizations and armed groups in this activity, we do not have good 

evidence on the extent of that involvement. We believe that, in 

some cases, they may be profiting financially from it. In some 

cases, they may be exchanging wildlife products for safe haven or 

for weapons. But, the picture is far from clear, and I would—you 

know, I would defer to my intelligence-community colleagues. But, 

I think, even in the unclassified assessment that the Office of the 

Director of National Intelligence has posted, the links that we can 

establish at this point are not strong. 

43 

One area where we have better insights, I think, is in the area 

of terrorist financing. And, at this stage, we do not see that wildlife 

trafficking is a major revenue source, or a significant revenue 

source of any kind for terrorist organizations. But, again, we seek 

to develop better knowledge on this. And we are very attuned to 

the possibility that it is out there. 

Senator COONS. Ambassador, let me focus on one country, in particular, if I might. Mozambique has recently come under fairly intense scrutiny as both a transshipment country and the base from 

which a significant number of poachers are operating who are 

going in and out of Kruger National Park in South Africa, as well 

as other parks in the region. What is the U.S. Government doing 

to address Mozambique’s particularly strong role in fueling poaching and trafficking in southern Africa? 

Ambassador GARBER. Thank you for that question, Mr. Chairman. 

We have been addressing this issue with the Government of Mozambique. And the Government of Mozambique has acknowledged 

the seriousness of the wildlife trafficking problem. The U.S. Government is currently engaged with the Mozambique Government to 

consider ways to address these issues. And we currently have a 20- 

year public-private partnership between the Government of Mozambique and the Gorongosa Restoration Project, a U.S. nonprofit 

organization that has been a strong partner in overall park management in combating wildlife trafficking. 

Our Embassy has also been engaging with civil society in Mozambique and various partners trying to leverage additional publicprivate partnership. And recently—and I think, again, this is a 

sign of how the attention that the United States has been paying 

to this issue is beginning to make a difference—the Government of 

Mozambique, just last month, the Parliament passed a Conservation Areas Act, which will introduce significantly more serious penalties for wildlife crimes. Under this law, protected animals, without a license, would result in a prison sentence of 8 to 12 years, 

and the illegal exportation, storage, transportation, or sale of protected species results in fines equivalent of up to $90,000, which in 

Mozambique is significant. 

But, this is not just a one-country issue. I think a number of us 

have addressed that in the course of our comments today, that if 

you put pressure in one area, you can often see the traffickers and 

the problem moving elsewhere. So, we are also putting a lot of effort to try and put more into our regional wildlife enforcement network into southern—in southern Africa, trying to get South Africa 

to play a greater role, to get Mozambique to be involved, and just, 

generally, to put more concentration in there. So, as they are all 

sharing best practices, information, techniques, they will, together, 

work to the problem to prevent that this additional pressure that 

we have been putting on Mozambique, if we are successful, it does 

not just result in the problem moving next door. 

Senator COONS. Thank you, Ambassador. 

I would like to thank all four of you for your very hard work, 

your leadership, and your cooperation and coordination. 

I would like to thank, again, representatives who are with us 

today from a wide range of nongovernmental organizations. I do 

44 

think this is an area that enjoys broad interest and support from 

Members of Congress, a significant interest and engagement from 

our constituents, and where there is a very great challenge for us 

in demand reduction in Asia and in the United States and in dealing with the corruption, the violence, the porous borders, the lack 

of trained and adequately staffed and supported wildlife rangers 

and border guards that really make Africa, sadly, tragically, the 

focus of a lot of illicit poaching. 

So, thank you for your work and your service, and thank you for 

your testimony here today. 

The record of this hearing will be kept open til the close of business tomorrow, Thursday, May 22. 

And I am grateful for your testimony and your work. 

With that, we are hereby adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:04 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

RESPONSES OF DANIEL M. ASHE TO QUESTIONS

SUBMITTED BY SENATOR MARCO RUBIO

On February 11, 2014, the administration announced a ‘‘National Strategy for 

Combating Wildlife Trafficking’’ and a proposal to ban all U.S. commercial trade in 

elephant ivory. However, a September 2012 FWS International Affairs Division 

report stated: ‘‘Since the vast majority of seizures in the United States were small 

quantities, we do not believe that there is a significant illegal ivory trade into this 

country.’’ 

Question. What has changed since the September 2012 report to move the administration to pursue a complete ban on U.S. commercial trade in elephant ivory? 

Answer. The quote above is included in a fact sheet that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) prepared highlighting U.S. efforts to control illegal ivory trade. 

The statement was based on the Elephant Trade Information System (ETIS) analysis of U.S. import/export seizure data. As we noted in the fact sheet, the vast 

majority of seizures interdicted at the point of import are small quantities. However, 

the data reported for inclusion in the ETIS analysis did not include large-scale seizures of ivory that had previously entered the United States illegally and were not 

detected upon import. 

The U.S. v. Victor Gordon case is just one such example. On June 4, 2014, a judge 

in New York sentenced Victor Gordon to 30 months in prison, followed by 2 years 

of supervised release, for smuggling elephant ivory into the United States. Approximately one ton of elephant ivory was seized in that case alone. 

A more holistic evaluation of U.S. ivory seizures, as well as the substantial volume of elephant ivory available within the United States that is of questionable 

legal origin, indicates that we remain a significant ivory market, and we must continue to be vigilant in combating illegal ivory trade. 

Question. How would a complete ban on the domestic trade and sale of legally 

owned, preban ivory stop poaching and the illicit trade in ivory? 

Answer. By effectively controlling illegal ivory trade at home and encouraging and 

assisting elephant range states and consumer countries around the world to take 

additional actions to control poaching and illegal trade, we can have a significant 

impact on elephant conservation. 

Though there is trade in antiques and other legally acquired ivory imported prior 

to the 1989 African Elephant Conservation Act ivory import moratorium, we believe 

a substantial amount of elephant ivory is illegally imported and enters the domestic 

market. It is extremely difficult to differentiate legally acquired ivory from ivory 

derived from elephant poaching. Our criminal investigations and antismuggling 

efforts have clearly shown that legal ivory trade can serve as a cover for illegal 

trade. In addition to the Victor Gordon case noted above, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service and state wildlife officers seized more than 2 million dollars’ worth of illegal 

elephant ivory from two New York City retail stores in 2012. 

We have not yet implemented any regulatory or policy action to completely ban 

all domestic trade and we have not asserted that we will do so. Instead, we will 

45 

propose a revision to the Endangered Species Act special rule for the African elephant that will further restrict commercial trade in African elephant ivory within 

the United States. This proposed rule will be subject to public comment and we will 

address those public comments before publishing a final rule. 

STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE WILDLIFE CONSERVATION SOCIETY

Thank you for the opportunity to submit written testimony on the hearing entitled ‘‘The Escalating International Wildlife Trafficking Crisis: Ecological, Economic 

and National Security Issues.’’ The Bronx Zoo-headquartered Wildlife Conservation 

Society (WCS) is an international conservation organization with the mission of saving wildlife and wildlife places. Globally, WCS works to protect more than a quarter 

of the world’s biodiversity in more than 60 countries around the world. WCS manages or comanages more than 200 million acres of protected areas across Africa, 

Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean, Oceania, and North America employing 

more than 4,000 staff including 200 Ph.D. scientists and 100 veterinarians. WCS 

works to protect many of the world’s most iconic species, including elephants, tigers, 

gorillas, chimpanzees, bison, sea turtles, whales, sharks, and many others. WCS 

also works to conserve ecologically significant and intact land and sea scapes 

partnering with governments, local communities, and other stakeholders. 

International wildlife trafficking, driven largely by burgeoning demand in Asia 

and facilitated by corruption, is considered by experts to be the fourth-largest illegal 

trade in the world behind drugs, guns and human trafficking, and is estimated to 

be worth at least $5 billion and potentially in excess of $20 billion annually.1 Wildlife trafficking and other transnational crimes are often interlinked, either involving 

the same trade routes and countries, or even some of the same criminal syndicates. 

The current wave of wildlife poaching in many countries is carried out by sophisticated and well-organized criminal networks—often using helicopters, night-vision 

equipment, and silencers—avoiding enforcement patrols. In many countries, the 

poaching of elephants and other species threatens sustainable development and the 

security of local communities, especially when illicit proceeds partially fund insurgency groups such as the Lord’s Resistance Army and al-Shabab.2

WCS is implementing a 4-pronged global approach to end wildlife trafficking: (1) 

documenting the crisis; (2) stopping the poaching; (3) stopping the trafficking; and 

(3) ending the demand for illegally or unsustainably sourced products such as ivory. 

WCS works to monitor, analyze, and publish population trend data for key wildlife 

species, poaching rates, and trafficking information. For example, WCS led on 

recent seminal scientific papers showing dramatic declines in range and populations 

of tigers and forest elephants.3 This work has been effective in raising awareness 

of the scale and the nature of the problem, and stimulating government actions. 

WCS works to stop wildlife poaching through its long-term field-based projects, 

including in 24 sites across 16 countries in Africa and Asia on elephants, and 

another 11 sites across 7 countries on tigers. To measurably reduce poaching, WCS 

is establishing and supporting ranger and community guard patrols; deploying the 

GIS-based SMART4 software across 100 partner sites for parks and protected areas 

to enhance monitoring, enforcement patrols, morale, and transparency; and conducting aerial surveillance for detection and early warning system to trigger an 

enforcement response—particularly in large savannah areas and marine ecosystems. 

WCS also works to stop the trafficking along major global and regional trafficking 

chains in multiple source, intermediary, and consumer countries. WCS supports government partners to ensure national legislative frameworks and the institutional 

environment elevates the recognition of wildlife trafficking to a serious transnational organized crime to enable both an effective policing response and deterrent 

to wildlife trafficking. WCS also strengthens the technical capacity of frontline 

enforcement agencies and promotes and facilitates the strategic application of appropriate technologies and tools (e.g., sniffer dogs, mobile apps, x-ray scanners, and 

wildlife forensics such as DNA and isotopic analyses of seized contraband) toward 

significantly improving rates of successful arrests, prosecutions, and convictions of 

wildlife traffickers resulting in deterrent penalties. WCS gathers and analyses information to generate actionable intelligence on key individuals and key trafficking 

routes, and carries out a range of activities with our government partners to ensure 

that agencies are legally mandated, sufficiently trained, and empowered to share 

information and respond, with effective enforcement, to actionable intelligence at 

multiple scales. Finally, WCS also works to reduce demand through multiple evidence-based approaches, including active social media campaigns in Asia and the 

United States to reach potential consumers.5

46 

The political attention on this issue continues to grow within the U.S. Government with the release and implementation of the National Strategy to Combat Wildlife Trafficking (National Strategy). Wildlife conservation, antipoaching, and antitrafficking efforts would not be possible without the tremendous support and assistance of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the U.S. State 

Department Office of International Narcotics & Law Enforcement (INL), the U.S. 

State Department Office of Oceans, Environment and Scientific Affairs (OES), the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and the U.S. Department of Justice Division 

of Environment & Natural Resources (DNR). Congressionally directed appropriations to biodiversity conservation, large landscape conservation programs, wildlife 

trafficking, law enforcement, and international species conservation have been essential to mounting a sustained long-term response to the crisis. Ensuring that 

these funds are directed to the greatest threats and the priority geographies is critical as funds are scaled up, rather than sprinkling small amounts across many countries. U.S. Government collaboration with other countries and civil society is already 

delivering increased political will as several countries have followed the U.S. Government’s lead in destroying their confiscated ivory stocks. 

Government agencies responsible for combating wildlife trafficking in Asia still 

lack the political and legislative support, resources, or skills to mount an effective 

response. While recent improvements in law enforcement and successful investigations have occurred, trafficking remains largely unaffected. International mechanisms such as Interpol and United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), 

and regional support initiatives such as ASEAN-Wildlife Enforcement Network can 

allow for greater regional coordination, but are only as strong as their members. 

This ‘‘third-party convener’’ model for international cooperation depends upon the 

level of trust between countries and with the international organizations convening 

them. 

In recognition of the shortcomings of existing programs, WCS is (a) maximizing 

our in-country presences and deep knowledge through intelligent and strategic analysis and dissemination of information; and (b) leveraging this information through 

our trusted in-country relationships by helping to generate government responses 

along the trade chains to catalyze enforcement at key nodes to prevent, detect, and 

suppress criminals who sustain illegal flows of wildlife. China, Vietnam, Lao PDR, 

Cambodia, Indonesia, and Burma are the priority investment countries based on the 

global impact that criminal networks in those countries are having on wildlife populations in Africa. There are five priority approaches: (1) strengthen coordination and 

cooperation within and between governments in priority trafficking countries; (2) increase political support toward effective enforcement on wildlife traffickers within 

key countries at national and local levels; (3) provide and train frontline law 

enforcement officials—border, customs, police, and regulatory bodies—on new mobile 

technologies to apprehend, arrest, prosecute, and penalize criminals; (4) generate 

accurate information and intelligence on criminals, companies, species trafficked, 

methods of trafficking, trafficking routes; and (5) empower local civil society and 

media in priority countries along the trade chain to pressure and support government agencies to act. These approaches will build political will and galvanize action 

to stop trafficking in supply, transit, and consumer countries, as well as reduce 

demand. It is important to note that being aware of an issue does not necessarily 

lead to an attitudinal or behavior change resulting in reduced consumption. From 

WCS’s experience, in many Asian countries, government action and inaction are perhaps more important drivers of both criminal and consumer behavior. 

In dealing diplomatically with China, the U.S. Government should continue the 

Strategic and Economic Dialogue as a means to elevate wildlife trafficking and promote China as a global leader. The U.S. could encourage China to building off of 

leadership statements at APEC and ASEAN to convene an international global or 

regional dialogue with China’s key economic or trade partners, on the national and 

economic security threats from wildlife trafficking. Behavior-change campaigns like 

the recent 96 Elephants Campaign’s parody of ‘‘The Antique Road Show,’’ ‘‘Antique 

HorrorShow’’ 6 which is urging broadcasters to stop assessing and glorifying the 

value of ivory for commercial sale, need to spring up within China coupled with 

increased public reporting of wildlife crimes through smart-phone apps such as the 

Wildlife Guardian App.7

In Vietnam, law enforcement needs to be professionalized through training academy curricula for prosecutors, police, and customs. The World Customs Organization 

and Interpol should provide greater on-the-job support for the use of investigative 

techniques. To increase the effectiveness of existing policies, technical assistance to 

coordinate and operate the Vietnam Wildlife Enforcement Network is needed, 

including regular meetings, field missions, analyses, and task forces at key trafficking locations. To enhance international cooperation, Vietnam should be conVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:47 Jan 06, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 2ND SESSION\2014 ISSUE TE
47 

vinced to open up strategic dialogues with key countries in Africa and Asia along 

the trade chain to share information, build relationships, and plan joint investigatory and enforcement operations. 

Through our antitrafficking work on the China/Vietnam border, WCS has alerted 

both countries to ongoing smuggling at a key border point, and have followed up 

with training and other activities. The U.S. Embassies in both Vietnam and the Lao 

PDR, and many other countries, are now actively engaged on the crisis, working 

through diplomatic channels to elevate the issue. A recent government workshop in 

Vietnam was attended by the U.S. Embassy along with other governments, demonstrating the value of the National Strategy to elevate wildlife trafficking as a 

transnational organized crime necessitating higher level engagement of U.S. embassies and foreign policy actors. 

In Africa, site-based protection of wildlife and antitrafficking techniques such as 

sniffer dogs must be used to address this crisis head-on. In Tanzania’s Ruaha 

National Park, which harbors the largest remaining population of elephants in East 

Africa, WCS and our partners have proven that building the professional capacity 

of rangers, enhancing protected area management, and applying new technologies 

for reporting poaching incidents are working. These same successes could be realized in other countries. In the Sudano-Sahelian region south of the Sahara in Africa, 

collusion between smugglers and state officials has eroded state authority and created lucrative funding channels for terrorists, militias, and criminal groups.8 In 

response, INL is using a successful technique in the battle against the narcotics 

trade, to link anticorruption and unit vetting programs to support willing governments plagued with wildlife trafficking. Asset recovery and forfeiture will be integral to shutting down corruption, money laundering, and other illicit financial flows 

related to wildlife trafficking. 

In Uganda, a critical transshipment hub for illegal wildlife products such as ivory, 

protecting elephants from poachers and shutting down transboundary trafficking 

routes are critical. The Greater Virunga and Murchison Semliki Landscapes in 

Uganda are a priority for WCS investment in order to protect the most important 

remaining populations of elephants, lions, and chimpanzees in the country. Efforts 

must focus on professionalizing the Uganda Wildlife Authority in antitrafficking 

techniques and the interception of ivory being transited through Uganda to other 

destinations on the African Continent and in Asia. 

U.S. political leadership can make all the difference in stopping this crisis. The 

U.S. must continue to elevate this issue politically, through bilateral and multilateral relationships around the world, particularly in key source, transit, and consumer countries. In addition to conservation efforts, U.S. work with other governments on anticorruption, transnational organized crime, and money laundering 

should include wildlife crime. Where U.S. ambassadors collaborate with international donors in a country and regionally with other U.S. ambassadors, the impact can be significant, as has been the case in Central Africa. U.S. ambassadors 

have the authority to direct the military, intelligence, legal, and law enforcement 

staff in the embassy to analyze and share key intelligence with wildlife law enforcement officials. With the placement of FWS staff at major transit locations this info 

sharing will be essential. This practice needs to be standardized across all U.S. 

embassies. 

U.S. Government leadership at CITES can help end wildlife crime. One such 

opportunity is the CITES Standing Committee meeting this July, in Geneva. This 

Committee, the body that manages the work of CITES intersessionally, will discuss 

the ivory trade at its next meeting, including decisions related to the eight countries 

identified as the most problematic in ivory trafficking; those countries that have not 

fulfilled their obligations run the risk of sanctions by CITES on wildlife trade. The 

U.S. is a member of the Committee, and building on the National Strategy, the U.S. 

is in a strong position to work with other member governments to take a firm, 

proactive position on wildlife trafficking at the upcoming meeting. 

Thank you to Africa Subcommittee Chairman Senator Coons, Asia Subcommittee 

Chairman Senator Cardin, and Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman 

Menendez for hosting the May 21, 2014, joint hearing on wildlife trafficking. Raising 

the profile on the wildlife poaching and trafficking crisis, and especially the 

transnational criminal nature of this economic and national security issue, can serve 

as a great mobilizing force to coordinate a global response. As the limitations of existing federal authorities become apparent it is imperative that the Senate Foreign 

Relations Committee legislate and guide federal agencies to work in an effective and 

efficient coordinated manner with the full array of resources, capabilities and assets 

the U.S. Government can bring to bear internationally. 

48 

———————— 

End Notes 

1Wyler, L.S., Sheikh, P.A., 2013. ‘‘International Illegal Trade in Wildlife: Threats and U.S. 

Policy.’’ Congressional Research Service Report for Congress RL34395, Washington D.C., USA. 2 UNEP, CITES, IUCN, TRAFFIC, 2013. Elephants in the Dust—The African Elephant Crisis. 

A Rapid Response Assessment. United Nations Environment Programme, GRID-Arendal. 

www.grida.no and Vira, V., Ewing, T., 2014. ‘‘Ivory’s Curse: The Militarization & Professionalization of Poaching in Africa.’’ Born Free USA and c4ads, Washington DC, USA. 3Maisels, F. Strindberg, S., Blake, S., et al., 2013. ‘‘Devastating Decline of Forest Elephants 

in Central Africa.’’ PLoS ONE 8, e59469. and Walston, J., Robinson, J.G., Bennett, et al. E.L., 

2010. ‘‘Bringing the Tiger Back from the Brink—The Six Percent Solution.’’ PLoS Biol 8, 

e1000485. 4 ‘‘SMART Conservation Software,’’ North Carolina Zoological Park on behalf of the SMART 

Collaboration, 2014, available at http://www.smartconservationsoftware.org/. 5See, www.96elelphants.org for U.S.-based demand reduction public campaign and http:// 

shouhudaxiang.org for a Chinese ivory demand reduction campaign site. 6See, www.96elelphants.org for U.S.-based demand reduction public campaign. 

7See, http://china.wcs.org/AboutUs/LatestNews/tabid/6788/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/ 

953/WildlifelGuardianlmobilelsoftware.aspx#.U3tqgfldVPo. 8Written Testimony of Ambassador William R. Brownfield, Assistant Secretary of State for 

International Narcotics & Law Enforcement Affairs, ‘‘United States Assistance to Combat 

Transnational Crime’’: Hearing before the Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs of the Appropriations Committee (U.S. House of Representatives, May 7, 2014), 

available at http://docs.house.gov/meetings/AP/AP04/20140507/102189/HHRG-113-AP04-WstateBrownfieldA-20140507.pdf. 

STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION, 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, WASHINGTON, DC 

I. INTRODUCTION

Chairmen Coons and Cardin, and members of the Committee on Foreign Relations Subcommittees on African Affairs and East Asian and Pacific Affairs, thank 

you for the opportunity to submit to you this testimony discussing the work of the 

Environment and Natural Resources Division of the U.S. Department of Justice 

(‘‘ENRD’’ or the ‘‘Division’’) with respect to the administration’s efforts to combat 

wildlife trafficking. 

II. OVERVIEW OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION

The Environment and Natural Resources Division is a core litigating component 

of the U.S. Department of Justice (the ‘‘Department’’). Founded more than a century 

ago, ENRD has built a distinguished record of legal excellence. The Division is organized into nine litigating sections (Appellate; Environmental Crimes; Environmental 

Defense; Environmental Enforcement; Indian Resources; Land Acquisition; Law and 

Policy; Natural Resources; and Wildlife and Marine Resources), and an Executive 

Office that provides administrative support. ENRD has a staff of about 600, more 

than 400 of whom are attorneys. 

The Division functions as the Nation’s environmental lawyer, representing virtually every federal agency in courts across the United States and its territories and 

possessions in civil and criminal cases that arise under an array of federal statutes. 

Our work furthers the Department’s strategic goals to prevent crime and enforce 

federal laws, defend the interests of the United States, promote national security, 

and ensure the fair administration of justice at the Federal, State, local, and tribal 

levels. 

III. ENRD’S WORK WITH RESPECT TO WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING

For the purposes of this hearing, this testimony highlights the work of the Division in prosecuting wildlife and wildlife-related crimes; conducting capacity-building 

and training on wildlife-related issues; and helping to develop and implement the 

National Strategy for Combating Wildlife Trafficking. 

The Department of Justice, principally through the work of the Environment Division, has long been a leader in the fight against wildlife trafficking. Combating wildlife trafficking is a top priority for the Department. Earlier this year, Associate 

Attorney General Tony West led the United States delegation at the London Conference on the Illegal Wildlife Trade, where high-level representatives from more 

than 40 countries gathered and issued a declaration emphasizing that urgent action 

is necessary to end wildlife trafficking and eliminate demand through high-level 

political commitment and international cooperation. 

49 

The Division has a separate section devoted to the prosecution of environmental 

crimes, including wildlife crime. The Environmental Crimes Section has 35 dedicated criminal prosecutors who often work together with U.S. Attorneys’ Offices 

around the country and our federal agency partners (such as the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) in the 

area of wildlife trafficking. Our cases enforce the Endangered Species Act and the 

Lacey Act, as well as statutes prohibiting smuggling, criminal conspiracy, and 

related crimes. We have had significant successes over the years prosecuting those 

who smuggle and traffic in elephant ivory, endangered rhinoceros horns, South African leopard, Asian and African tortoises and reptiles, and many other forms of protected wildlife. Some cases that exemplify these critical enforcement efforts are discussed below. 

The Department also works in the international sphere by assisting and collaborating with enforcement partners in source, transit, and destination countries for 

illegal trade in protected wildlife. The Department works closely with the State 

Department and various international organizations to promote more proactive 

international law enforcement operations, including through efforts to train investigators, prosecutors, and judges. Some examples of these activities are discussed in 

more detail below. 

Most recently, the Department of Justice has engaged deeply in the administration’s effort to combat wildlife trafficking in its role as one of the three agency cochairs of the Presidential Task Force on Wildlife Trafficking, established by President Obama’s July 1, 2013, Executive order on Combating Wildlife Trafficking. The 

Department, principally through ENRD, has worked closely with the other cochairs 

from the Departments of State and the Interior, and the other Task Force agencies, 

to craft the National Strategy for Combating Wildlife Trafficking. The Strategy, 

announced by the White House on February 11, 2014, identifies three key priorities: 

(1) strengthening domestic and global enforcement; (2) reducing demand for illegally 

traded wildlife at home and abroad; and (3) strengthening partnerships with foreign 

governments, international organizations, NGOs, local communities, private industry, and others to combat illegal wildlife poaching and trade. The Department is 

committed to contributing to the implementation of all aspects of the Strategy, 

though our primary efforts naturally focus on enforcement. The work we do to 

improve domestic and global enforcement includes not only our own case work but 

also our substantial efforts to improve enforcement through international capacitybuilding and training. 

A. Wildlife Trafficking Prosecutions 

The two primary federal antiwildlife trafficking statutes that the Department enforces are the Lacey Act and the Endangered Species Act. The Lacey Act reaches 

two broad categories of wildlife offenses: illegal trafficking in wildlife and false labeling. The Endangered Species Act establishes a U.S. program for the conservation 

of endangered and threatened species. The Endangered Species Act makes it illegal 

to traffic in listed endangered or threatened species without a permit and also 

implements our international treaty obligations under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)—a treaty 

establishing limits on trade in certain species of wildlife. 

The types of cases we prosecute for illegal trafficking are varied. While many 

involve individuals trafficking in illegal wildlife and wildlife parts, we are also seeing the involvement of criminal organizations, including transnational criminal organizations that may threaten the security interests of the U.S. and its allies. We 

routinely seek punishment that includes sentences for significant periods of incarceration, fines, and restitution or community service to help mitigate harm caused 

by the offense; forfeiture of the wildlife and instrumentalities used to commit the 

offense; and, where wildlife traffickers also violate laws against smuggling or other 

related crimes, disgorgement of the proceeds of the illegal conduct. 

A prominent example of the Division’s robust prosecution of illegal wildlife trafficking is ‘‘Operation Crash,’’ an ongoing multiagency effort to detect, deter, and 

prosecute those engaged in the illegal killing of rhinoceros and the illegal trafficking 

of endangered rhinoceros horns. This initiative has resulted in multiple convictions, 

significant jail time, penalties, and asset forfeiture. In one case, United States v. 

Zhifei Li (D.N.J), the defendant pled guilty this past December to organizing an illegal wildlife smuggling conspiracy in which 30 raw rhinoceros horns and numerous 

objects made from rhino horn and elephant ivory (worth more than $4.5 million) 

were smuggled from the United States to China. Li pleaded guilty to a total of 11 

counts: one count each of conspiracy to smuggle and conspiracy to violate the Lacey 

Act, seven smuggling violations, one Lacey Act trafficking violation, and two counts 

of making false wildlife documents. Li admitted that he was the ‘‘boss’’ of three 

50 

antique dealers in the United States whom he paid to help obtain wildlife items and 

smuggle to him through Hong Kong. One of those individuals was Qiang Wang, 

a/k/a ‘‘Jeffrey Wang,’’ who was sentenced to serve 37 months’ incarceration for 

smuggling Asian artifacts, including ‘‘libation cups,’’ made from rhinoceros horn and 

ivory (United States v. Qiang Wang (S.D.N.Y.)). More information about the Li case 

is available at http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2013/December/13-enrd-1335.html, and 

information about the Wang case is at http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2013/December/ 

13-enrd-1284.html. 

Another recent ‘‘Operation Crash’’ success is United States v. Michael Slattery, Jr. 

(E.D.N.Y.). This past January, Slattery (an Irish national) was sentenced to serve 

14 months’ incarceration, followed by 3 years’ supervised release. Slattery also will 

pay a $10,000 fine and forfeit $50,000 of proceeds from his illegal trade in rhinoceros horns. In 2010, Slattery traveled from England to Texas to acquire black 

rhinoceros horns. Mr. Slattery admitted to illegal trafficking throughout the United 

States and is alleged to belong to an organized criminal group engaged in rhino 

horn trafficking. This organized criminal element speaks to the scope, scale, and 

lawlessness of this problem. More information about this case is available at: 

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2013/November/13-enrd-1181.html. 

‘‘Operation Crash’’ cases, like the Wang case above, may also include charges 

related to the illegal smuggling and sale of elephant ivory. The Division has seen 

success in other elephant ivory cases. In United States v. Tania Siyam (N.D. Ohio), 

Siyam, a Canadian citizen, was sentenced in August 2008 to 5 years’ incarceration 

and a $100,000 fine for illegally smuggling ivory from Cameroon into the United 

States. Siyam originally operated art import and export businesses in Montreal 

(Canada) and Cameroon that were fronts for smuggling products from endangered 

and protected wildlife species, including raw elephant ivory. The two ivory shipments to Ohio included parts from at least 21 African elephants. 

Another ivory case, United States v. Kemo Sylla, et al. (E.D.N.Y.), concerned the 

illegal importation of ivory over a 2-year period through New York’s JFK Airport. 

The ivory was disguised as African handicrafts and wooden instruments. The six 

defendants pleaded guilty to Lacey Act violations and received sentences ranging 

from 1 year of probation to 14 months’ incarceration. A number of the defendants 

also were ordered to pay fines to the Lacey Act Reward Fund. More information 

about this case is available at: www.justice.gov/usao/nye/pr/2011/2011mar03.html. 

Still other prosecutions involve the illegal import or export of endangered species. 

For instance, in United States v. Nathaniel Swanson (W.D. Wash.), three defendants 

were recently sentenced (following guilty pleas) to incarceration ranging from 5 

months to 1 year, supervised release, and an order to pay $28,583 in restitution for 

conspiracy to smuggle various turtle and reptile species from the United States to 

Hong Kong, including Eastern box turtles, North American wood turtles, and ornate 

box turtles. One of the defendants also illegally imported several protected turtle 

species from Hong Kong, including black-breasted leaf turtles, Chinese stripednecked turtles, big-headed turtles, fly river turtles, and an Arakan forest turtle. 

The Arakan forest turtle is critically endangered, having once been presumed extinct. The illegal trafficking spanned approximately 4 years. More information about 

this case is available at http://www.justice.gov/usao/waw/press/2014/January/swanson.html. 

B. Working in the International Sphere: Training and Capacity-Building 

As the Strategy recognizes, wildlife trafficking is a global problem that requires 

a global solution. For many years, prosecutors and other Division attorneys have 

worked closely with our foreign government partners to build their capacity to 

develop and effectively enforce their wildlife trafficking laws, better enabling them 

to combat local poaching and the attendant illegal wildlife trade. The Division’s 

training efforts have focused on the legal, investigative, and prosecution aspects of 

fighting wildlife crime. We seek to help our partners craft strong laws, strengthen 

their investigation and evidence-gathering capabilities, and improve their judicial 

and prosecutorial effectiveness. Our experience has shown that such training develops more effective partners to investigate and prosecute transnational environmental crimes, increases our ability to enforce U.S. criminal statutes that have 

extraterritorial dimensions while also helping law enforcement officials in the U.S. 

and other countries meet their enforcement obligations under international environmental and free trade agreements. These training initiatives also foster positive relationships with prosecutors in other countries in a way that better enables us to 

share information and assist in prosecuting transnational crimes. 

We often conduct our international training in close collaboration with the 

Department of State and other federal agencies, such as the Department of the 

Interior and the U.S. Forest Service. Capacity-building may be conducted bilaterally 

51 

(in the United States or a partner nation) or in multilateral fora, and our programs 

may span a range of environmental crimes. The Division has participated extensively in training and providing support for foreign investigators, prosecutors, and 

judges through the various Wildlife Enforcement Networks (‘‘WENs’’). These include 

the Association of Southeast Asian Nations WEN (‘‘ASEAN–WEN’’), South Asia 

WEN, and Central American WEN, as well as the launch of WENs in Central 

Africa, Southern Africa, and the Horn of Africa. In multiple countries in these regions, we have conducted workshops that involved dozens of agencies from the host 

countries, and typically have included hundreds of participants representing government, the judiciary, industry, and civil society. The workshops are a mix of direct 

course instruction on legal and wildlife trafficking enforcement issues, including 

presentations by U.S. environmental prosecutors, and an opportunity for representatives from the different countries to exchange views on the issues they face. Thus, 

these sessions are both a valuable training opportunity and an opportunity to 

develop a law enforcement network in that region. 

The Division has also been involved in numerous international training efforts 

focused on enhancing prosecutions brought under the Lacey Act. The Lacey Act is 

the United States oldest plant and wildlife protection statute and is one of our primary tools to fight wildlife trafficking. With the amendment of the Lacey Act in 

2008 to protect a broader range of plants and plant products, the State Department 

and the U.S. Agency for International Development have provided funding for much 

of our recent capacity-building work, focused on the trade in illegally harvested and 

traded timber and timber products, an illegal trade conservatively estimated at a 

value of $10 to $15 billion worldwide. ENRD has conducted numerous training sessions abroad on investigating and prosecuting illegal logging cases in Indonesia, 

Brazil, Peru, Honduras, and Russia. The training agenda may vary somewhat from 

country to country, but is typically done in close collaboration with the foreign government and local prosecutors. Such collaboration benefits and strengthens criminal 

law enforcement both here and abroad. These capacity-building efforts further our 

efforts to combat wildlife trafficking. As the National Strategy recognizes, wildlife 

trafficking is facilitated and exacerbated by the illegal harvest and trade in plants 

and trees, which destroys needed habitat and opens access to previously remote populations of highly endangered wildlife. 

The Division conducts further international capacity-building in the area of illegal 

wildlife trafficking through its participation in INTERPOL (specifically the Wildlife 

Crime Working Group, Environmental Crime Committee, and Fisheries Crime 

Working Group) and the International Law Enforcement Academy (with programs 

for eastern European and Southeast Asian law enforcement officials). 

The Division is also working closely with the Office of the United States Trade 

Representative to promote conservation objectives and to combat wildlife trafficking 

by pursuing commitments including with respect to law enforcement cooperation in 

U.S. free trade agreements, like the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement. 

C. The National Strategy to Combat Wildlife Trafficking 

The Department is proud of its record of achievement in this area, but the 

National Strategy is a reminder that more must be done. The National Strategy 

calls for a ‘‘whole of government’’ approach and increased federal coordination to address three priorities: (1) enhancing domestic and international law enforcement to 

curb the illegal flow of wildlife; (2) reducing the demand for illegally traded wildlife; 

and (3) building and strengthening global cooperation and public/private partnerships to support the fight against wildlife trafficking. The National Strategy resulted from the analysis, contributions, and expertise of multiple federal agencies, 

and it benefitted from the contributions of the Advisory Council on Wildlife Trafficking established by the July 1, 2013, Executive order. Coming from outside the 

government, the Advisory Council brings a wide range of experience and skills to 

the process and represents the many different communities that will have to be engaged as partners to tackle this problem. 

The result is a robust, coordinated, and far-reaching National Strategy that 

addresses the multiple dimensions of this growing crisis, and the Department is 

proud to have played a major role in developing the National Strategy. The Strategy 

recognizes that strong enforcement is critical to stopping those who kill and traffic 

in these animals, whether on land or in the oceans. And, as is described above, the 

Department of Justice has for many years aggressively pursued and prosecuted 

those engaged in the illegal wildlife trade. We have also worked vigorously to train 

and support partner countries in their efforts to stanch this terrible crime. 

As we work to implement the National Strategy, those enforcement and capacitybuilding efforts will be enhanced and intensified. Department prosecutors will continue to target traffickers and their networks, investigate and prosecute them, bring 

52 

down their leaders, and disrupt the illicit finance that flows to and from these syndicates. We will focus on making illegal wildlife trafficking much less profitable by 

using the tools of fines and penalties, seizure and forfeiture, and payment of restitution to those victimized by illegal trafficking. The Department will also strengthen 

our coordination of enforcement efforts, looking for ways to improve the way we 

work with our federal partner agencies (including through the improved sharing of 

intelligence), as well as state and tribal authorities. 

We also look forward to working with Congress to strengthen existing laws and 

develop new legislation to improve the tools available to address this challenge. The 

law should place wildlife trafficking on an equal footing with other serious crimes, 

for example, by recognizing wildlife trafficking as a predicate crime for money laundering. We can also more effectively fight the scourge of wildlife trafficking if Congress passes legislation that allows for using funds generated through wildlife trafficking prosecutions to mitigate the harms caused by that trafficking, as well as to 

ensure adequate authority to forfeit all proceeds of wildlife trafficking. 

Looking globally, the Department will continue to help source, transit, and demand countries build their capacity to take action against illegal wildlife traffickers. 

Given the transnational dimension of this problem, we will continue our support 

and training of existing Wildlife Enforcement Networks and look to support additional regional WENs, where appropriate. And more directly, recognizing that illegal 

wildlife trafficking is a growing area of transnational organized crime, we will support and engage in enforcement initiatives together with the enforcement authorities of other nations. These efforts will target the assets and seek to impede the 

financial capacity of international wildlife traffickers. 

IV. CONCLUSION

In closing, the Department remains fully committed to working with the administration and Congress to do all that we can to stop those who poach and traffic illegally in wildlife. 

STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY GINETTE HEMLEY, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, WILDLIFE

CONSERVATION, WORLD WILDLIFE FUND, AND CRAWFORD ALLAN, SENIOR DIRECTOR, 

TRAFFIC 

Chairmen Coons and Cardin, Ranking Members Flake and Rubio, and members 

of the subcommittees, thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony on the 

international wildlife trafficking crisis and its implications for conservation, economic growth and development and U.S. security interests. Our testimony is offered 

on behalf of both World Wildlife Fund-US and TRAFFIC and also reflects the views 

of our broader networks around the globe. WWF is the largest private conservation 

organization working internationally to protect wildlife and wildlife habitats. WWF 

currently sponsors conservation programs in more than 100 countries with the support of 1.2 million members in the United States and more than 5 million members 

worldwide. TRAFFIC, a strategic alliance of WWF and IUCN-International Union 

for Conservation of Nature, is the world’s leading wildlife trade monitoring organization. It is a global network with 25 offices around the world working to ensure 

that trade in wild plants and animals is not a threat to the conservation of nature. 

Over the past 38 years, TRAFFIC has gained a reputation as a reliable and impartial organization and a leader in the field of conservation as it relates to wildlife 

trade and trafficking. Both WWF and TRAFFIC are proud to have representation 

on the U.S. Federal Advisory Council on Wildlife Trafficking. 

INTRODUCTION

Illegal wildlife trafficking and poaching to supply the illegal trade in wild fauna 

and flora is one of the greatest current threats to many of our planet’s most charismatic, valuable, and ecologically important species. As has been recognized by 

many in the U.S. Government, including the President of the United States through 

Executive Order 13648 and the new National Strategy for Combating Wildlife Trafficking, wildlife trafficking poses a threat not just to wildlife conservation and our 

shared natural heritage but also to security, good governance, and economic development objectives around the globe. It is a transnational criminal enterprise worth 

billions of dollars annually that is strongly connected to other transnational organized crimes, such as drug and arms trafficking.1

According to the best estimates, the illegal wildlife trade has a value of approximately $10 billion per year, a figure which puts it the top 5 largest illicit 

transnational activities worldwide, along with counterfeiting and the illegal trades 

53 

in drugs, people, and oil.2 If the illegal trades in timber and fish are included in the total, then the estimated value of illegal wildlife trafficking rises to almost $20 

billion annually. In terms of its size, wildlife trade outranks the illegal small arms 

trade. It also has strong connections to other illegal activities—guns, drugs, and 

ivory may be smuggled by the same criminal networks and using the same techniques and smuggling routes. 

According to data from the CITES Elephant Trade Information System (ETIS) 

that was established by TRAFFIC, the increase of large-scale (>500kg) ivory seizures is one piece of evidence of the growing involvement of organized crime in the 

illegal wildlife trade. Since 2009, we have seen a significant upsurge in the number 

of large-scale seizures. Last year, 2013 saw more large-scale ivory seizures than any 

year since records began 25 years ago, surpassing the previous record in 2011. 

While seizures of rhino horn are smaller by weight, rhino horn is worth far more 

than elephant ivory, priced higher than gold pound for pound. Illicit traders can 

make more profit from smuggling a kilo of rhino horn than they would make from 

smuggling any illicit drug, and the risks are minimal in comparison. (It is estimated 

that 3,000kg of illicit rhino horn reaches Asian markets each year.) 

These record seizure numbers translate into devastating declines for the affected 

species. Tens of thousands of African elephants are killed every year to supply the 

illegal ivory market, with an average of nearly 20 tonnes seized per year over the 

past 20 years and annual highs of over 40 tonnes seized. The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Fauna and Flora (CITES) reported that 

roughly 25,000 elephants were illegally killed on the African Continent in 2011 and 

that another 22,000 fell victim to poaching in 2012. Many independent experts see 

these estimates as conservative and believe the number to be significantly higher, 

with some estimates ranging from 30,000 to as high as 50,000. During the same 

period, the number of rhinos illegally killed in South Africa also rose dramatically: 

from 13 animals in 2007 to 1,004 in 2013—more than a 7,500-percent increase.3

Tigers continue to be subjected to intense poaching pressures throughout their 

range in Asia, and numerous other species—many less well-known—are being rapidly depleted to feed a voracious global trade, including sharks, pangolins, corals, 

tortoises and terrapins, tokay geckos, song birds and endangered plant species, such 

as orchids and tropical hardwoods. 

At the root of this wildlife trafficking and poaching crisis is the growing demand— 

primarily in Asia—for high-end products made from wildlife parts, such as elephant 

ivory, rhino horn, and tiger skins and bones. Products made from these and other 

increasingly rare species command high prices on Asian black markets as purported 

medicinal cures (e.g., rhino horn powder and tiger bone wine), culinary delicacies 

(e.g., shark fins), or demonstrations of wealth and status (e.g., ivory carvings). 

Growing wealth in Asia, particularly in countries such as China and Vietnam, is a 

primary driver and has resulted in a steep increase in Asian consumers with the 

means to purchase such products—and in the prices being paid for them. 

If the growth in demand is primarily from Asia, the criminal networks feeding 

that growing demand are global in nature, reaching across oceans and continents 

and operating in many countries, including the United States. Middleman traders 

often direct poaching activities and engage in targeted efforts to corrupt law enforcement, border inspection and wildlife protection efforts in affected countries. In some 

cases, organized Asian criminal syndicates, which are now increasingly active in 

Africa, work with local economic and political elites to subvert control systems and 

operate with relative impunity. With respect to ivory, the trends in both the MIKE 

(Monitoring the Illegal Killing of Elephants) 4 and ETIS data sets are highly correlated with governance shortfalls and corruption. In other words, where poaching 

of elephants and illegal trade in ivory is most acute, poor governance is likely to 

be a serious operating factor. A related issue is the theft of government ivory stocks, 

a persistent problem in many African countries. For example, in April 2012 in 

Mozambique, 266 pieces of elephant ivory, representing over one tonne of ivory, 

were stolen from the government ivory store in the Ministry of Agriculture building 

in Maputo. Overall, illegal trade in ivory produces a broad corrupting influence on 

governments. 

The combination of rapidly rising prices and inadequate enforcement regimes in 

many countries makes poaching and illegal wildlife trafficking a high profit, low risk 

criminal enterprise and has led to a dramatic upsurge in not just the amount of 

poaching and illegal wildlife trafficking, but also its severity. Poachers supplying 

products such as elephant ivory and rhino horn are less often local criminals armed 

with spears or shotguns and more frequently resemble highly organized and heavily 

armed gangs, at times including militia or military personnel. They violate international borders, carry AK–47s and rocket-propelled grenades, and possess strong 

connections to transnational criminal networks. In some regions of Africa, trafVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:47 Jan 06, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 2ND SESSION\2014 ISSUE TE
54 

ficking in wildlife and other natural resources has been strongly connected to the 

financing of destabilizing forces, including armed insurgencies, groups responsible 

for human rights abuses, and organizations with ties to terrorism.5 In many parts 

of Africa and Asia, poachers and wildlife traffickers can operate largely with impunity due to weak laws or law enforcement, poor capacity, governance shortfalls, and 

a failure of many governments to recognize wildlife crime as the serious crime that 

it is. 

It is on the ground, primarily in developing countries and rural regions, where 

large-scale illegal trade in wildlife and wildlife products is having its most devastating effects, negatively impacting local communities by undermining regional 

security and economic growth while exacerbating corruption and instability. The 

current poaching crisis is pushing some of our most iconic species closer toward extinction, and many developing countries are witnessing the rapid decimation of their 

wildlife—a potentially valuable resource on which to build sustainable growth and 

eventually bring greater stability to impoverished and often conflict-torn regions. At 

the same time that wildlife crime is taking a profound toll on many ecological systems, it is also robbing some of the poorest communities on earth of their natural 

wealth, breeding corruption and insecurity and disenfranchising them of sustainable 

pathways to prosperity. 

In the testimony that follows, we hope to describe the problem as presented 

through two representative wildlife products—elephant and rhino horn—and provide recommendations on the role the U.S. Government can play in light of the new 

National Strategy on Combating Wildlife Trafficking. 

ELEPHANT IVORY

WWF has over 40 years of experience in elephant conservation. Through WWF’s 

African Elephant Program, we aim to conserve forest and savanna elephant populations through both conservation projects and policy development. WWF works 

with elephant range state governments, local people, and nongovernmental partners 

to secure a future for this powerful symbol of nature. TRAFFIC tracks illegal trade 

in elephant ivory using records of ivory seizures that have occurred anywhere in the 

world since 1989. The Elephant Trade Information System (ETIS), one of the two 

monitoring systems for elephants under CITES, is managed by TRAFFIC and currently comprises over 20,000 elephant product seizure records from over 90 countries, the largest such collection of data in the world. 

Elephants are important keystone species, and their future is tied to that of much 

of Africa’s rich biodiversity. African elephants help to maintain suitable habitats for 

many other species in savanna and forest ecosystems, directly influencing forest 

composition and density and altering the broader landscape. In tropical forests, elephants create clearings and gaps in the canopy that encourage tree regeneration. 

In the savannas, they can reduce bush cover to create an environment favorable to 

a mix of browsing and grazing animals. Many plant species also have evolved seeds 

that are dependent on passing through an elephant’s digestive tract before they can 

germinate; it is calculated that at least a third of tree species in west African forests 

rely on elephants in this way for distribution of their future generations. 

African elephants once numbered in the millions across Africa, but by the mid1980s their populations had been devastated by poaching. An international ban on 

the sale of ivory, put in place in 1989, helped to slow the rate of decline significantly 

for the past two decades in many parts of Africa. The status of the species now varies greatly across the continent. Some populations have remained in danger due to 

poaching for meat and ivory, habitat loss, and conflict with humans. In Central Africa, where enforcement capacity is weakest, estimates indicate that populations of 

forest elephants in the region declined by 62 percent between 2002 and 2011 and 

lost 30 percent of their geographical range,6 almost entirely due to poaching. This 

is in spite of the global trade ban in ivory trading, in place since 1989. Elephants 

in Central Africa are also heavily impacted by the existence of large, unregulated 

domestic ivory markets, especially those still functioning in Kinshasa, Democratic 

Republic of Congo (DRC) and Luanda, Angola. In other parts of Africa, populations 

have remained stable or grown until recently. However, evidence now clearly shows 

that African Elephants are facing the most serious crisis since the ivory trade ban 

under CITES was agreed to in 1989, and whatever gains were made over the past 

25 years may be in the process of being reversed. 

MIKE data show an increasing pattern of illegal killing of elephants throughout 

Africa and demonstrate an escalating pattern of illegal trade—one that has reached 

new heights over the past 3 years. Those working on the ground throughout Africa 

have seen an alarming rise in the number of elephants being illegally killed, even 

in areas that were, until recently, relatively secure and free from large-scale poachVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:47 Jan 06, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 2ND SESSION\2014 ISSUE TE
55 

ing, such as southern Tanzania and northern Mozambique.7 This past January, the 

Tanzanian Government released numbers showing that the population of elephants 

in that country’s Selous Game Reserve had fallen 66 percent in just 4 years—a 

shocking decline of tens of thousands of elephants for a reserve that until recently 

was home to Africa’s second-largest concentration of elephants. Witnesses have also 

seen a disturbing change in the sophistication and lethality of the methods being 

used by the poachers, who are frequently well armed with automatic weapons, professional marksmen and even helicopters. In most cases in Africa, poachers are better equipped than the park supervisors and guards. In some instances, they are better equipped even than local military forces. 

Escalating Ivory Trade and Large-Scale Ivory Seizures 

Illegal trade in ivory has been steadily increasing since 2004. The increases were 

rather modest initially, but since 2009 the upward trend has surged, with historic 

highs for large-scale ivory seizures. Preliminary estimates for last year, 2013 saw 

more large-scale ivory seizures (over 500kg) than any year since records began 25 

years ago, involving over 40 tonnes of ivory. Successive years of high-volume, illegal 

trade in ivory is a pattern that has not been previously observed in the ETIS data. 

This represents a highly worrying development and is jeopardizing two decades of 

conservation gains for the African Elephant, one of Africa’s iconic flagship species 

and an animal that the U.S. public feels adamant about protecting. 

Requiring greater finance, levels of organization and an ability to corrupt and subvert effective law enforcement, large-scale movements of ivory are a clear indication 

that organized criminal syndicates are becoming increasingly more entrenched in 

the illicit trade in ivory between Africa and Asia. Virtually all large-scale ivory seizures involve container shipping, a factor that imposes considerable challenges to 

resource-poor nations in Africa. 

Large-scale movements of ivory exert tremendous impact upon illegal ivory trade 

trends. Unfortunately, very few large-scale ivory seizures actually result in successful investigations, arrests, convictions and the imposition of penalties that serve as 

deterrents. International collaboration and information-sharing between African and 

Asian countries in the trade chain remains weak, and until very recently, forensic 

evidence was rarely collected as a matter of routine governmental procedure. 

Finally, the status of such large volumes of ivory in the hands of Customs authorities in various countries, which generally do not have robust ivory stock management systems, remains a problematic issue and leakage back into illegal trade has 

been documented. 

Ivory Trade Routes Out of Africa 

In terms of ivory trade flows from Africa to Asia, East African Indian Ocean seaports remain the paramount exit point for illegal consignments of ivory today, with 

Kenya and the United Republic of Tanzania as the two most prominent countries 

of export in the trade. This development stands in sharp contrast to ivory trade patterns previously seen whereby large consignments of ivory were also moving out of 

West and Central Africa seaports. Whether the shift in shipping ivory from West 

and Central African Atlantic Ocean seaports reflects a decline in elephant populations in the western part of the Congo Basin remains to be determined, but the 

depletion of local populations is steadily being documented throughout this region, 

according to the IUCN’s Species Survival Commission’s African Elephant Database. 

Data on elephant poaching from the Monitoring Illegal Killing of Elephants (MIKE) 

program, the other site-based monitoring system under CITES, also show that illegal elephant killing has consistently been higher in Central Africa than anywhere 

else on the African Continent. Now, however, poaching is seriously affecting all 

parts of Africa where elephants are found. 

End Use Markets in Asia 

In terms of end-use markets, China and Thailand are the two paramount destinations for illegal ivory consignments from Africa. While repeated seizures of large 

consignments of ivory have occurred in Malaysia, the Philippines, and Viet Nam 

since 2009, these countries essentially play the role of transit countries to China or 

Thailand. Directing large shipments of ivory to other Asian countries for onward 

shipment is an adaptation by the criminal syndicates to the improved surveillance 

and law enforcement action in China and Thailand where targeting of cargo from 

Africa has increased. Importation into other Asian countries allows the shipping 

documents to be changed, concealing the African origin of the containers in question. In the case of Viet Nam, which shares a long terrestrial border with China, 

ivory is being smuggled overland into China. CITES data also suggest that Cambodia, Laos, and most recently Sri Lanka are now rapidly emerging as new trade 

56 

routes into China and Thailand, reflecting further adaptations by the criminal networks behind this trade. 

China’s Role 

Without any doubt, ivory consumption in China is the primary driver of illegal 

trade in ivory today. The Chinese Government recognizes ivory trafficking as the 

country’s greatest wildlife trade problem, and law enforcement officials are making 

almost two ivory seizures every single day, more than any other country in the 

world. Regardless, strict implementation of China’s domestic ivory trade control system seriously faltered in the wake of the CITES-approved one-off ivory sale held in 

four southern African countries in late 2008. Various observers to China, including 

TRAFFIC monitors, have found government-accredited ivory trading retail outlets 

persistently selling ivory products without the benefit of product identification certificates, which previously were an integral discriminating feature in the Chinese 

control system. The ability of retail vendors to sell ivory products without product 

identification certificates means that they do not become part of China’s database 

system, which is designed to track ivory products at the retail level back to the legal 

stocks of raw ivory at approved manufacturing outlets. This circumvention creates 

the opportunity to substitute products from illicit sources of ivory into the legal control system. 

China remains the key for stopping the growing poaching crisis facing Africa’s elephants. While Chinese CITES authorities are engaged on ivory trade issues and law 

enforcement is certainly taking place on an unprecedented scale, China’s demographics appear to be swamping the impact of such actions. Within the country, 

stricter internal market monitoring and regulation are needed, and investigative 

effort directed at fighting the criminal syndicates behind the ivory trade needs to 

be scaled up as a dedicated, ongoing concern. At the same time, Chinese nationals 

based throughout Africa have become the principle middleman traders behind the 

large illegal movements of ivory to Asia. The advent of Asian criminal syndicates 

in Africa’s wildlife trade stands as the most serious contemporary challenge, and 

China needs to actively collaborate with African counterparts to address the growing Chinese dimension in Africa’s illegal trade in ivory and other wildlife products. 

Thailand’s Role 

Thailand also has one of the largest unregulated domestic ivory markets in the 

world. Unlike China, Thailand has consistently failed to meet CITES requirements 

for internal trade in ivory. In recent years, interdictions of several large shipments 

of ivory have occurred at Thailand’s ports of entry, resulting in over 8.3 tonnes of 

ivory being seized between 2009 and 2012. This development is welcomed, but there 

is almost no evidence of similar law enforcement pressure on the hundreds of retail 

ivory vendors in the country’s marketplace which effectively exploit legal loopholes 

in Thailand’s legislation to offer tens of thousands of worked ivory products to tourists and local buyers. An initial attempt by the Thai Government to address these 

legal deficiencies and provide a basis for stricter market regulation has been blocked 

by industry insiders, and the view that remedial measures in Thailand will only result if sanctions are imposed under CITES or an application of the Pelly amendment 

is increasingly taking hold as the only hope for breaking the current impasse. 

CITES data underscore the global reach of Thailand’s ivory markets as more than 

200 ivory seizure cases have been reported by other countries regarding illegal ivory 

products seized from individuals coming from Thailand over the last three years. 

Recognizing the elephant poaching and illegal ivory trade crisis, the U.S., the 

U.K. and others took a hard line at the 63rd Meeting of the CITES Standing Committee (March 2, 2013) and agreed to a Decision requiring countries identified as 

being involved in substantial illegal ivory trade as source, transit, or destination 

countries to develop ivory trade ‘‘action plans’’ that included milestones and clear 

timeframes for addressing the illegal flow of ivory along the trade chain. The countries or territories that were subject to this decision were: China and Thailand as 

destination countries, Malaysia, Hong Kong, Philippines, and Viet Nam as transit 

countries/territories, and Kenya, the United Republic of Tanzania and Uganda as 

source countries. 

Thailand submitted their report by the required deadline, but their action plan, 

and their progress against that action plan to date, has been unsatisfactory. At the 

16th Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to CITES (March 2013), and in the 

decade prior, Thailand attempted to deflect criticism of being a major ivoryconsuming nation by continually characterizing itself as a transit country. Fortunately, such posturing is not apparent in this action plan and the Thai Government 

seems to have finally acknowledged its role as a major ivory trade destination. However, a host of other issues do raise serious concerns. Although a comprehensive acVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:47 Jan 06, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 2ND SESSION\2014 ISSUE TE
57 

tion plan has been submitted, its content creates serious ambiguity in terms of overall, long-term intent. The plan presents conflicting signals concerning whether there 

will be controlled domestic ivory trade or a complete end to ivory trade in Thailand’s 

future and commits little in the way of increased law enforcement. 

The timeline of Thailand’s action plan is of serious concern, particularly as it 

relates to the legislative reform process. Indeed, Thailand is the only country that 

has structured its action plan around a 5-year timeframe extending to the end of 

2017. This is an unacceptably excessive amount of time, as legislative issues should 

have been resolved decades ago. The proposed legislative amendments would enable 

Thailand to implement the Appendix I listing of African elephant ivory that took 

effect in January 1990—over 23 years ago. Thailand has been a Party to the Convention since January 1973. 

Next to China, Thailand’s domestic ivory market is perhaps the second-greatest 

driver of illegal trade in ivory at the present time, and Thailand needs to be held 

accountable for years of inaction. WWF and TRAFFIC would strongly encourage the 

U.S. Government to consider using the full force of punitive measures allowed by 

CITES—a ‘‘recommendation to suspend trade’’—to encourage Thailand to address 

its illegal ivory market. The U.S. should make this recommendation at the 65th 

Meeting of the CITES Standing Committee, July 7–11, 2014. Additionally, the U.S. 

should work in advance of the meeting to encourage other Members of the Standing 

Committee and other governments to actively support this recommendation as well. 

RHINO HORN

In addition to the poaching crisis affecting elephants in West, Central, and Eastern Africa, a concurrent and related crisis is affecting rhinos, primarily in South 

Africa, which is home to roughly 80 percent of the world’s remaining rhinos. In the 

early 2000s, roughly a dozen rhinos were illegally killed in South Africa in any 

given year, but since 2007, the country has been experiencing an unprecedented 

surge in rhino poaching: in 2007, 13 rhinos were illegally killed; by 2011, it was 448; 

in 2012 it was 668; and in 2013, it was 1,004. These numbers represent a more than 

7,500-percent increase in poaching deaths in just 6 years’ time—a situation made 

all the more shocking given that South Africa is recognized to have the most welldeveloped park system in Africa, with the highest capacity and best enforcement. 

Much like ivory poaching, rhino horn poaching and trading operations are associated with organized and well-armed criminal networks, some with access to highpowered weapons, helicopters, and night vision goggles. These poaching operations 

can outgun wildlife rangers or move so rapidly there is low risk of detection. Profits 

are now so high that even those charged with protecting rhinos are becoming corrupted and facilitating the poaching. There is no sign of abatement in poaching 

rates, in spite of military support and intervention in Kruger National Park, the 

primary site of the poaching surge. Many African nations fear their rhinos will be 

targeted next, particularly if South Africa somehow manages to prevent further 

slaughter and the poachers seek out easier targets. Kenyan officials are particularly 

concerned and have seen an increase in poaching losses, which, as a percentage of 

their total rhino population, are worse than those in South Africa. In Namibia this 

week, reports are that DNA testing of rhino horns seized from Chinese nationals 

leaving the country earlier this year, show that the rhino horns were taken from 

seven Namibian rhinos. 

Vietnam’s role 

Rhino poaching is surging due to demand for rhino horn in Vietnam, where many 

believe that the horn has medicinal properties. Some believe it to be a last resort 

cure for fever and even cancer; others employ it as a party drug/hangover cure that 

doubles as a status symbol due to its exorbitant cost. Rising prosperity in Vietnam 

means that wealthy buyers have driven up prices and demand for rhino horn to a 

level where it is now being sourced not just from live rhinos in Africa and Asia, but 

also from trophies, antiques, and museum specimens in the U.S. and Europe. Rhino 

horn is now worth more than its weight in gold or heroin. While trade in rhino horn 

is illegal in Vietnam, possession is not. Rhino horns trophies are officially permitted 

in Vietnam only as personal effects, not for commercial purposes (under CITES 

rules) and not to be traded or used post-import. Under the terms of the trophy export permit from South Africa, horns are not to be used for commercial purposes. 

South Africa has now prevented Asia nationals from trophy hunting however, as 

they uncovered a ‘‘pseudohunt’’ system where Vietnamese and Thai nationals (not 

known for trophy hunting), were hunting rhinos to export the horns to trade illegally in Vietnam. Until recently, Vietnam had shown little willingness to clamp 

down on illegal trade in rhino horn, but engagement by the U.S. State Department 

and recent CITES decisions regarding rhino horn seem to have helped move VietVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:47 Jan 06, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 2ND SESSION\2014 ISSUE TE
58 

nam to be more cooperative in addressing the problem. Much more will need to be 

done to clamp down on illegal trade in rhino horn and educate the Vietnamese public, however, if current trends are to be reversed and demand for the product is to 

be curtailed and eliminated. 

Mozambique’s Role 

Mozambique is coming under intense scrutiny as a major driver of both rhino 

horn and ivory trafficking, due to its role as a major transshipment point for illegal 

wildlife products out of Africa and a major base for poaching operations into South 

Africa’s Kruger National Park, whose eastern frontier is comprised of a 220-mile 

stretch of South Africa’s porous border with Mozambique. It is estimated that 80 

percent of the rhino poaching occurring in Kruger National Park is being carried 

out by poaching gangs from Mozambique. This situation is exacerbated by the fact 

that, at present, Mozambique has no serious laws or penalties to deter rhino poaching or possession of rhino horn. Poaching is simply considered a misdemeanor 

offence, and trafficking gangs have raced to take advantage of the permissive environment that this legal vacuum provides for their operations. Corrupt practices on 

a significant scale are supporting the criminal networks operations. In March 2013, 

the CITES Conference of the Parties directed Mozambique to take urgent actions 

to tackle its role in the rhino poaching crisis, including the need to give priority 

attention to the creation and implementation of effective legislation to effectively 

deter wildlife crime and to preventing the illegal killings of rhinos and possession 

of rhino horn. Some legislative reforms have moved forward since that Decision was 

issued, but these have yet to take legal effect. At the next CITES Standing Committee meeting, July 7–11, 2014, there is a potential that Mozambique may receive 

punitive measures for chronic failings in this regard. 

BENEFITS OF WILDLIFE FOR ECONOMIC GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT

Wildlife resources, if properly protected, can form the basis for future economic 

growth in impoverished, rural regions of the continent. In several African and Asian 

countries, this is already happening. In Namibia, WWF has helped to establish community-run ‘‘conservancies’’ in which local communities own and manage their own 

wildlife resources, deriving profits from ecotourism opportunities and sustainable 

use of wildlife, have contributed to new attitudes toward wildlife, rebounding populations of such charismatic species as rhinos and lions, and—just as importantly— 

an exponential increase in the economic benefits that communities receive from 

their wildlife, including income and employment. Due to joint-venture lodges and related ecotourism opportunities, community conservancies now generate upward of 6 

million USD annually for rural Namibians—up from an insignificant amount in the 

mid-1990s. These successful programs receive critical support from USAID and, 

more recently, the Millennium Challenge Corporation, as well as WWF and others. 

By demonstrating the value of wildlife to local communities, these programs have 

also made essential partners out of local people in the long-term conservation of 

wildlife and defense against poaching, helping to build successful informer networks 

and wildlife stewardship among communities, which have helped keep wildlife 

poaching low to nonexistent in countries where these programs have become established. Namibia’s conservancies have remained largely immune to elephant and 

rhino poaching until recently, and a central reason why, when isolated poaching 

incidents have occurred in the past year, the poachers have been apprehended within 24 hours because of information provided by local informers. Empowered to 

communally own and manage their wildlife resources, conservancies have helped to 

created local governance and democracy in addition to economic prosperity and a 

respect for the rule of law in post-apartheid Namibia. In Nepal, a similar approach 

combining Community-Based Anti-Poaching Units, strong engagement by the government in park protection and enhanced intelligence-sharing led to a full year free 

of poaching of rhinos, tigers or elephants in that country on two separate occasions—in 2011 and 2013. 

In Central Africa, a wildlife-based economic success story can also be told about 

Virunga National Park—Africa’s oldest national park and one of its most important 

in terms of biodiversity. It is also the continent’s best known park, because it is 

home to the last remaining mountain gorillas. Gorilla-based tourism is a huge economic engine: the annual revenue earned directly from gorilla tourism in the 

Virungas is now estimated at 3 million USD. In Rwanda alone, the number of tourists visiting the country from 2010 to 2011 increased 32 percent and tourism revenues rose an amazing 12.6 percent, from $200 million to $252 million in 2011— 

much of it due to mountain gorillas and other ecotourism opportunities. 

Through USAID, the U.S. is currently helping to support additional communitybased wildlife conservation efforts in other priority landscapes for wildlife, including 

59 

Tanzania’s Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs) and southern Africa’s KavangoZambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area (KAZA)—the largest transboundary conservation area in the world, encompassing 109 million acres, crossing five southern 

Africa countries (Angola, Botswana, Namibia, Zambia, and Zimbabwe), and home to 

nearly half of Africa’s remaining elephant population. Given its rich wildlife 

resources, the KAZA partnership in particular has the potential to improve the livelihoods of the 2.5 million people who live in the Okavango and Zambezi river basin 

regions through Community-Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) 

approaches informed by the successful Namibia conservancies model that ensure 

that local communities benefit economically from wildlife on their land, through conservation of animals and their habitats and the creation of a world-class tourism 

experience while also bringing southern African countries together to more effectively combat international wildlife trade and poaching through informationsharing, joint patrols and surveillance, as well as harmonized law enforcement 

policies. 

We strongly encourage continued U.S. Government support for programs such as 

these, which help to create clear economic benefits for local people from protecting 

wildlife, thereby incentivizing locally driven conservation efforts and building immunity to poaching and wildlife trafficking. For these reasons, they are an essential 

part of the long-term solution to the current crisis. 

THE U.S. GOVERNMENT ROLE

Over the past 2 years, the U.S. Government has demonstrated historic leadership 

on the issue of wildlife trafficking, at all levels. Long an international leader on the 

issue, the U.S. has, since 2012, helped to elevate attention on wildlife crime both 

at home and abroad to a new apex. The President’s issuance of Executive Order 

13648 and the creation of the National Strategy for Combating Wildlife Trafficking 

by a Presidential Task Force led by the Departments of State, Interior and Justice 

are a profound recognition by the administration of the importance of this issue and 

the will to address it. This U.S. leadership has also set the stage internationally, 

putting the issue firmly on the agendas for our international partners, including in 

fora such as APEC, ASEAN, UNODC, the U.N. Security Council and—with renewed 

energy and impressive success—at the most recent CITES CoP. The U.S. ivory 

crush last November has helped to trigger similar actions by major demand countries, including China and Hong Kong. And the leadership of many in Congress, 

from both sides of the aisle, has already helped to raise the profile of the issue and 

strengthen U.S. law to address it, and is now working to provide the resources and 

needed oversight to ensure that the new U.S. strategy is implemented efficiently, 

effectively, and with the concerted energies of all relevant U.S. agencies in a wholeof-government approach. We strongly believe that this whole-of-government 

approach must continue, guided by the strategy, and hope it can serve as a model 

that other countries will emulate to ensure that they are bringing to bear not just 

their conservation resources and expertise to solve this problem, but also the full 

range of law enforcement, security, intelligence, and diplomatic resources guided by 

high-level leadership and political will. Following are some specific thematic recommendations for priority government actions. 

Diplomatic Recommendations 

The U.S. Government should continue to raise the issue of wildlife trafficking at 

the highest levels with key countries and in international forums and should strive 

to insert wildlife crime into the agendas of relevant bilateral and multilateral agreements where it is not yet addressed and where the work of those agreements could 

benefit the fight against wildlife trafficking (as was done in 2013 with the U.N. 

Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice and at APEC in 2012). 

The United States Government should continue to use its considerable diplomatic 

influence and technical capacity to work with the primary consumer countries to 

shut down the illegal trade and should ensure that countries are held accountable 

at this summer’s Standing Committee meeting for applicable decisions made at the 

last CITES Conference of the Parties. Recent steps by China are encouraging and 

need to be institutionalized and sustained through the U.S.-China Strategic Economic Dialogue. Thailand must enact major legislative and enforcement reforms to 

control its internal ivory market. Mozambique must play a critical role in preventing its citizens from driving a poaching epidemic in South Africa and in ending its 

role as a major transit hub for ivory and rhino horn. And Vietnam must take action 

at all levels to enforce CITES rhino trade restrictions and launch public initiatives 

to reduce demand. These countries must be held accountable to CITES and the 

global community if they fail to live up to their international commitments. 

60 

To drive needed action, the U.S. should consider application of the Pelly amendment and the sanctions process that law offers in cases where CITES continues to 

be seriously undermined. The Pelly amendment has been used sparingly but successfully in the past to achieve swift reforms in countries where endangered species 

trafficking was completely out of control, specifically for the illegal trade in tiger 

and rhino parts in Taiwan, China, South Korea, and Yemen. Each of those countries 

made major positive wildlife trade control improvements as a result of action under 

the Pelly amendment and parallel action through CITES. The ivory and rhino trade 

today is as serious as any wildlife trade issue in the past and warrants equally serious measures. 

Anti-Poaching Recommendations 

The men and women on the front lines who put their lives on the line in order 

to prevent wildlife crime are the thin green line between the poachers and the animals they wish to kill. In order to effectively reduce poaching, we need to ensure 

that they are up to the task when they are confronted with today’s poaching threats, 

which are more dangerous than they have ever been and require more skills than 

have often been expected in the past. 

There are two ways to look at antipoaching; the short-term emergency response 

and the long-term solution. In terms of the emergence response, effective on-theground protection requires: suitable operational support, including trained rangers; 

knowledge of patrol tactics; access to equipment and transportation; and adaptive 

management systems, such as that provided by the SMART8 conservation tools. 

In order for on-the-ground operations to be efficient and proactive they need to 

be supported by intelligence, and this can be gained through community relationships, informant networks, on-patrol interviews, and through the use of surveillance 

technology. Interdiction also needs to lead to prosecution so that the cost of breaking 

the law outweighs the benefits, requiring a whole-of- government approach even at 

the local level. Crucially, the best antipoaching operations are focused on crime prevention and not violator interdiction. This means working with communities 

through a community policing framework where there is a strong partnership 

between rangers and communities. These approaches are enhanced where communities see direct benefits between conservation and economic development. It is an 

integrated approach such as this one, which WWF has helped to foster through its 

program in Nepal, which has seen Nepal achieve zero rhino and elephant poaching 

in 2 of the last 3 years. 

We know what works and how to establish these systems at the local level. But 

we have also been here before: in the 1980s, conservationists worked to abate the 

last poaching crisis affecting elephant, rhino, and tiger populations. We successfully 

abated that crisis, and with a concerted effort, we can abate the current one as well, 

but what we have not been able to do is get ahead of the curve to prevent the next 

crisis from happening in the first place. To do this takes a more strategic, long-term 

approach; one of sector reform. 

In the majority of countries being a ranger is a not a profession that one aspires 

to. Despite being charged with protecting a national asset, rangers are often poorly 

paid, poorly trained, lacking health or life insurance, expected to work long hours, 

stationed in remote areas away from their families for long periods of time, operating in some of the most hostile and dangerous environments on the planet, lacking 

access to performance-based reward systems, and regularly intimidated or prosecuted if they don’t turn a blind eye to crime. In order to build a professional ranger 

corps, rangers deserve our attention not just in times of crisis but in a sustained 

fashion. 

In order to transform the ranger force we need to: 

• Establish accredited higher education training centers that produce professionally trained rangers—in a similar fashion to police academies, no ranger 

should be hired without receiving a professional, accredited qualification; 

• Rewards and promotions should be based on performance and set competencies—this means transforming the human resource systems in many ranger departments; 

• Rangers need to be empowered with the legal authority to detain and arrest 

suspects, to process a crime scene and present admissible evidence in court, and 

to legally defend themselves in life threatening situations; 

• Rangers should be reasonably protected by the law when they are doing their 

duty; 

• Adequate insurances should be provided to rangers and their families; 

• Outposts should provide shelter, basic amenities, communications equipment, 

and medical supplies. 

61 

The long-term solution to the poaching crisis is to reform the ranger force just 

like the international community supports reform in other sectors such as police, 

education, and health. Professionalizing the ranger force will support rule of law, 

provide an additional layer of good governance and provide protection for environmental services including biodiversity, timber, fisheries, watersheds, and carbon 

stocks. Rangers are also often on the front line in remote areas that are safe havens 

for criminal gangs, militias and terrorist organizations and, in many cases, the protected areas they patrol also run along international borders, adding another layer 

of security considerations. The U.S. Government should consider how it can support 

the promotion of global standards and training and accreditation systems to achieve 

the transformation outlined above, whether through existing U.S. institutions, such 

as the State Department-run International Law Enforcement Academies, or through 

partnerships with national or regional training institutions that can help foster 

‘‘ranger academies’’ and the long-term professionalization of the wildlife law enforcement sector in partner countries. 

Where suitable, the U.S. Government should also explore possible collaboration 

and/or assistance by the Department of Defense/AFRICOM with those local forces 

tasked with wildlife and/or park protection in countries facing militarized poaching 

threats, whether through training opportunities, logistical and intelligence support, 

or provision of equipment. 

Anti-Trafficking Recommendations 

In implementing the U.S. strategy, the U.S. should focus significant efforts on disrupting and dismantling the illicit trafficking networks and crime syndicates that 

are driving the poaching and illegal trade, including advanced investigative and intelligence gathering techniques and bringing to bear the same sorts of tools used 

to combat other forms of trafficking, such as narcotics. As the narrowest point in 

the trade chain, impeding traffickers offers the best opportunity to disrupt the flow 

of illicit goods, represents the highest-value targets for arrest and prosecution, and 

their arrest, prosecution, and incarceration can serve as a strong disincentive to others involved in or hoping to involve themselves in the illegal wildlife trade. 

The U.S. should continue to support transregional programs, similar to Wildlife 

TRAPS and Operation Cobra/Cobra II, which coordinate joint law enforcement 

actions between demand, range and transit states and focus on multiple points in 

the illegal trade chain. 

The U.S. should focus on enhancing port and border security at key transit points 

(e.g., seaports in Southeast Asia and East, Central, and West Africa), including border detection efforts and investigative techniques. The expertise of U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection and others at the Department of Homeland Security could 

be of value in these efforts, and their active involvement should be encouraged. 

The U.S. should dedicate serious efforts to enhancing the prosecutorial and judicial law enforcement capacity in priority countries in order to ensure successful convictions and incarcerations of serious wildlife traffickers, including anticorruption 

measures. 

The U.S. should continue to support the development and sustainability of regional Wildlife Enforcement Networks (WENs) as well as the creation of nationallevel Wildlife Crime Task Forces or National Coordination Units in participating 

countries (using the U.S. Task Force and National Strategy as a model). 

The U.S. should assist a targeted number of countries to build the requisite capacity, political will, and improvements in their law enforcement systems that will 

enable and empower them to emulate relevant elements of the U.S. approach to 

combating wildlife trafficking and to investigate, arrest, prosecute, and incarcerate 

wildlife criminals effectively. 

The U.S. should support development and dissemination of new technologies and 

tools, including DNA testing of specimens, tracking of shipments, SMART or similar 

patrolling software and the International Consortium to Combat Wildlife Crime’s 

(ICCWC) Forest and Wildlife Crime toolkit. 

Congress should take legislative action to make wildlife trafficking a predicate 

offense under Title 18 to money laundering, racketeering, and smuggling. Congress 

should also consider other legislative fixes that put wildlife trafficking on par with 

other trafficking offenses, such as drug trafficking, and authorize U.S. law enforcement to bring the same legal tools to bear. 

The U.S. Government should continue to improve wildlife crime intelligencesharing and cooperation in evidence-gathering between law enforcement, security 

and intelligence agencies of the U.S. Government, including the Department of 

Defense (on security linkages) and the Department of the Treasury (on illicit financial flows). 

62 

CONCLUSION

We are once more at a crisis moment for elephants and rhinos and numerous 

other species targeted by the illegal wildlife trade. U.S. policymakers at the highest 

level have provided outspoken leadership and strong statements of commitment and 

action, and these have played a large part in galvanizing global action around this 

issue in an unprecedented way. It is time to put those commitments into action, and 

to implement them with concerted efforts on the ground, energetic diplomatic 

engagement, and the full range of law enforcement tools. The United States Government at all levels has demonstrated its willingness to lead on this issue, and that 

leadership will continue to be pivotal to solving this crisis and protecting our planet’s wildlife heritage over the long term. WWF and TRAFFIC are redoubling our 

efforts to combat this threat, and we are deeply heartened and deeply grateful to 

see the level of U.S. Government leadership on this issue, which gives us hope for 

a positive future. 

On behalf of WWF and TRAFFIC, we thank you for the opportunity to provide 

testimony to the committee. We thank you and your subcommittees for your leadership on this issue, and we look forward to continuing to work with Congress and 

the administration to address this crisis. 

———————— 

End Notes 

1www.dni.gov/files/documents/WildlifelPoachinglWhitelPaperl2013.pdf. 2http://transcrime.gfintegrity.org/. 

3http://wwf.panda.org/?uNewsID=203098. 

4http://www.cites.org/eng/prog/mike/index.php. 

5www.dni.gov/files/documents/WildlifelPoachinglWhitelPaperl2013.pdf. 6Maisels F, Strindberg S, Blake S, Wittemyer G, Hart J, et al. (2013) ‘‘Devastating Decline 

of Forest Elephants in Central Africa.’’ PLoS ONE 8(3):e59469. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone. 

0059469. 7http://namnewsnetwork.org/v3/read.php?id=180566; http://www.sanwild.org/NOTICEBOARD/ 

2011a/Elephant%20poachers%20use%20helicopter%20in%20Mozambique%20National%20Park. 

HTM; http://www.savetheelephants.org/news-reader/items/selous-the-killing-fields-40tanzania41. 

html. 8Spatial Monitoring and Reporting Tool: a GPS-based law enforcement monitoring system 

that improves the effectiveness and transparency of patrols, www.smartconservationsoft 

ware.org. 

STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY BAS HUIJBREGTS, HEAD OF POLICY, ILLEGAL WILDLIFE

TRADE CAMPAIGN, CENTRAL AFRICA WORLDWIDE FUND FOR NATURE (WWF) 

Chairmen Coons and Cardin, Ranking Members Flake and Rubio, and members 

of the subcommittees, thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony on the 

international wildlife trafficking crisis and its implications for conservation, economic growth and development, and U.S. security interests. As Head of Policy for 

WWF’s International Wildlife Trade Campaign in Central Africa, my testimony is 

offered on behalf of the WWF International with respect to combat poaching and 

wildlife trafficking in the Congo Basin countries of Central Africa. Prior to my current role, I also spent nearly 2 years as Regional Conservation Director for WWF’s 

Central Africa Regional Programme Office. Founded in 1990, the WWF Central 

Africa Programme is focused on the Congo Basin and provides support to WWF’s 

offices and projects in Cameroon, Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic 

of Congo and Gabon. WWF global network of offices and programs makes it the 

largest private conservation organization working internationally to protect wildlife 

and wildlife habitats. WWF currently sponsors conservation programs in more than 

100 countries with the support of more than 5 million members worldwide, including 1.2 million members in the United States. 

INTRODUCTION

Illegal wildlife trafficking and poaching to supply the illegal trade in wild fauna 

and flora is one of the greatest current threats to many of our planet’s most charismatic, valuable, and ecologically important species. It is a transnational criminal 

enterprise worth billions of dollars annually: according to the best estimates, the illegal wildlife trade has a value of 7.8–10 billion USD per year, a figure which puts 

it the top five largest illicit transnational activities worldwide, along with counterfeiting and the illegal trades in drugs, people, and oil.1 If the illegal trades in timber 

and fish are included in the total, then the estimated value of illegal wildlife trafficking rises to roughly 20 billion USD annually. In terms of its size, wildlife trade 

outranks the illegal small arms trade. It also has strong connections to these other 

63 

illegal activities—guns, drugs and wildlife products, such as ivory, may be smuggled 

by the same criminal networks and using the same techniques and smuggling 

routes.2

For these reasons wildlife trafficking and the poaching that accompanies it pose 

a threat not just to wildlife conservation, but also to security, good governance, and 

economic development objectives in many developing countries, including in Central 

Africa. 

The combination of rising prices for illegal wildlife products, such as ivory, and 

inadequate enforcement regimes in many countries makes poaching and illegal wildlife trafficking a high profit, low-risk criminal enterprise and has led to a dramatic 

upsurge in not just the amount of poaching and illegal wildlife trafficking, but also 

its severity. Poachers supplying products such as elephant ivory and rhino horn are 

less often local criminals armed with spears or shotguns and more frequently resemble highly organized and heavily armed gangs, at times including militia or military 

personnel. They violate international borders, carry AK–47s and rocket-propelled 

grenades, and possess strong connections to transnational criminal networks. In 

some regions of Africa, trafficking in wildlife and other natural resources has been 

strongly connected to the financing of destabilizing forces, including armed 

insurgencies, groups responsible for human rights abuses, and organizations with 

ties to terrorism.3 In many parts of Central Africa, poachers and wildlife traffickers 

can operate largely with impunity due to weak laws or law enforcement, poor capacity, governance shortfalls, and a failure of many governments to recognize wildlife 

crime as the serious crime that it is. 

ELEPHANTS AND IVORY POACHING IN CENTRAL AFRICA

Poaching in Central Africa is putting serious pressure on numerous species, 

including great apes, pangolins, and a variety of species that are targeted by the 

bushmeat trade. However, my testimony will focus on one species in particular— 

Central Africa’s elephants and the ongoing ivory poaching crisis in the region. 

WWF has over 40 years of experience in elephant conservation. Through WWF’s 

African Elephant Program, we aim to conserve forest and savanna elephant populations through both on-the-ground conservation projects and policy development. 

WWF works with elephant range state governments, local people and nongovernmental partners to secure a future for this powerful symbol of nature. Elephants 

are important keystone species, and their future is tied to that of much of Africa’s 

rich biodiversity. African elephants help to maintain suitable habitats for many 

other species in savanna and forest ecosystems, directly influencing forest composition and density and altering the broader landscape. In tropical forests, elephants 

create clearings and gaps in the canopy that encourage tree regeneration. In the 

savannas, they can reduce bush cover to create an environment favorable to a mix 

of browsing and grazing animals. Many plant species also have evolved seeds that 

are dependent on passing through an elephant’s digestive tract before they can germinate—it is calculated that at least a third of tree species in west African forests 

rely on elephants in this way for distribution of their future generations. 

African elephants once numbered in the millions across Africa, but by the mid1980s their populations had been devastated by poaching. An international ban on 

the sale of ivory, put in place in 1989, helped to slow the rate of decline significantly 

for the past two decades in many parts of Africa. The status of the species now varies greatly across the continent. In some parts of Africa, populations have remained 

stable or grown until recently, with evidence now clearly showing that African Elephants are facing the most serious crisis since the ivory trade ban under CITES was 

agreed to in 1989. Whatever gains were made over the past 25 years may be in the 

process of being reversed. However, in Central Africa, where enforcement capacity 

is weakest, elephant populations never had the opportunity to recover during the 

1990s. In spite of the global trade ban in ivory trading put in place in 1989, Central 

Africa’s elephants have remained in danger due to poaching for meat and ivory, 

habitat loss and conflict with humans. They are now reaching a critical point: estimates indicate that populations of forest elephants in the region declined by 62 percent between 2002 and 2011 and lost 30 percent of their geographical range,4 almost 

entirely due to poaching. If current poaching rates continue or rise, forest elephants 

could be extinct within the next decade. 

In Central Africa’s developing countries and rural regions, this large-scale illegal 

activity is having devastating effects, negatively impacting local communities by undermining regional security and economic growth while exacerbating corruption and 

instability. The current poaching crisis is pushing some of the most iconic African 

species closer toward extinction, and Central African countries are experiencing the 

rapid decimation of their wildlife—a potentially valuable resource on which to build 

64 

sustainable growth and eventually bring greater stability to impoverished and often 

conflict-torn regions. At the same time that wildlife crime is taking a profound toll 

on many ecological systems, it is also robbing some of the poorest communities on 

earth of their natural wealth, breeding corruption and insecurity and disenfranchising them of sustainable pathways to prosperity. The poaching crisis is also taking 

a huge toll on the lives of park rangers and the families they support, making the 

ranger profession one of the most dangerous jobs in some parts of Africa. 

THREATS TO SECURITY, STABILITY AND RULE OF LAW

Poaching, by definition, entails armed individuals, often gangs, operating illegally 

in wildlife habitats which, in many cases, are protected areas that attract tourists 

and contribute to the economic development of many African countries. Where 

poaching is particularly entrenched and pernicious, armed militias from one country 

temporarily occupy territory in another country, destroying its wildlife assets and 

posing serious national security threats on many levels. Every year, throughout 

Africa, dozens of game scouts are killed by poachers while protecting wildlife. 

Poachers who profit from killing elephants and harvesting illegal ivory may also 

have ties to criminal gangs and militias based in countries such as Sudan (in the 

case of Central Africa) and Somalia (in the case of East Africa). Longstanding historical ties between slave trading, elephant poaching and the tribes that form 

Sudan’s Janjaweed militia (responsible for many of the worst atrocities in Darfur), 

mean that illegal ivory may well being used as powerful currency to fund some of 

the most destabilizing forces in Central Africa. 

In parts of West and Central Africa, the situation has been dire for some time, 

and severe poaching is already resulting in the local extinction of elephant populations. In the past few years, the situation has grown even worse as we have seen 

a disturbing change in the sophistication and lethality of the methods being used 

by the poachers, who are frequently well armed with automatic weapons, professional marksmen and even helicopters. In most cases, poachers are better equipped 

than park rangers. In some instances, they are better equipped even than local military forces. 

The connection between wildlife crime and regional security has been dramatically driven home over the past 3 years due to a number of high-profile poaching 

incidents involving large-scale massacres of elephants, violations of international 

sovereignty and the need for military involvement, both by African Governments 

and the U.S. military. The U.S. intelligence community has also been engaged to 

analyze the threat posed by wildlife trafficking to U.S. interests. According to a September 2013 white paper published by the U.S. National Intelligence Council and 

entitled, ‘‘Wildlife Poaching Threatens Economic, Security Priorities in Africa’’: 

Criminal elements of all kinds, including some terrorist entities and 

rogue security personnel, often in collusion with government officials in 

source countries are involved in poaching and movement of ivory and rhino 

horn across east, central, and southern Africa. We assess with high confidence that traffickers use sophisticated networks and the complicity of 

public officials in order to move ivory and rhino horn from relatively remote 

areas to markets and ports of export, perpetuating corruption and border 

insecurity in key eastern, central and southern African states. We judge 

some of these networks probably are the same or overlap with those of 

other illicit goods such as drugs and weapons. 

Poaching presents significant security challenges for militaries and police 

forces in African nations (e.g., Kenya, Tanzania, Congo-Kinshasa, South 

Africa, and others), which are often outgunned by poachers and their criminal and extremist allies. Corruption and lack of sufficient penal and financial deterrents are hampering these governments’ abilities to reduce poaching and trafficking.5

The connections between wildlife trafficking and security threats are particularly 

acute in Central Africa, where large parts of the region remain plagued by insecurity, civil war, and uncontrolled movements of armed and terrorist groups across 

national boundaries. This is demonstrated by the ongoing civil war in Central African Republic (CAR); kidnappings and killings by the terrorist group Boko Haram 

in Nigeria and its violent incursions in neighboring countries, such as Cameroon; 

the continued presence of the Lord Residence Army (LRA) in CAR and surrounding 

countries; and continued unrest and fighting by rebel and uncontrolled armed 

groups, including rogue elements of the armed forces in the case of DRC. Several 

of these armed factions, as well as al-Shabaab, Seleka, M23, the Janjaweed and the 

65 

Sudanese Army, have been implicated in the trafficking in wildlife and other natural resources as a means of financing their operations. 

Other parts of the subregion—mainly the heavily forested parts of Cameroon, as 

well as Gabon and the Republic of Congo (RoC)—have so far been spared such acute 

insecurity. However, even in these areas, lack of rule of law, corruption and abuse 

of power, combined with lack of law enforcement capacity, inaccessibility of the terrain, ease of access to guns and small arms, and the out of control price of ivory 

and other protected species products, such as pangolin scales, continue to lead to 

the rapid depletion the most iconic wildlife in the Congo Basin’s forests. 

Leadership in the region clearly understands the links between wildlife crime, 

peace and security and economic development, as demonstrated during the highlevel round table on the links between wildlife crime and peace and security in 

Africa organized by the French Government on December 5, 2013 (one day before 

the Elysee summit on Peace and Security in Africa). Central African Governments 

also agreed to the language of the final Declaration6 of the London Conference on 

Illegal Wildlife Trade, convened by the U.K. Government from February 12–13, 

2014, at Lancaster House, London to inject a new level of political momentum into 

efforts to combat the growing global threat posed by illegal wildlife trade. 

Cameroon 

WWF is active in four priority forest landscapes in Cameroon and provides onthe-ground support to law enforcement agencies in their fight against poaching and 

trafficking, including support to investigations, field operations leading to arrests, 

and legal support throughout the judiciary process. In the winter of 2012, Cameroon 

was the site of one of the worst elephant massacres ever recorded.7 In early February 2012, bands of heavily armed poachers illegally crossed from Chad into northern Cameroon’s Bouba N’Djida National Park. Over the course of several weeks, 

they massacred upward of 300 of the park’s elephants for their tusks. The poachers, 

believed to have come from Sudan with ties to the Janjaweed, traveled over 1,000 

miles on horseback, disregarding international borders to systematically target the 

elephants of Bouba N’Djida. The park guards were ill-equipped, unarmed and few 

in number, and the Sudanese militants were able to operate with impunity for 

weeks. The Cameroonian Government was slow to react or recognize the severity 

of the problem. Repelling the invaders eventually required the involvement of the 

Cameroonian military, resulting in casualties on both sides and the seizure of both 

ivory and weapons. The crisis provoked the engagement of the U.S. military, including an in-person meeting between the President of Cameroon and U.S. General 

Carter F. Ham, Commander of AFRICOM at the time. 

Since 2012, Cameroon has shown progress in its efforts to address wildlife crime. 

Elite units of the military have been dispatched to secure the border regions and 

to assist the park authorities, with some encouraging collaboration and results. 

While data since January 2014 is still being compiled, a total of 87 cases involving 

134 wildlife traffickers were followed up with WWF support from July to December 

2013 for a total of 39 court decisions obtained. The 39 court decisions were given 

against a total of 55 wildlife traffickers out of which 49 were declared guilty. Some 

of the high profile cases that led to successful prosecutions include: 

• In September 2013, after a year-long trial, the notorious poacher Sangha 

Symphorien was sentenced to an unprecedented 3 years imprisonment and 

fined 45,000 USD as damages for assault against a wildlife ranger, elephant 

poaching and ivory trafficking; 

• An ivory trafficker arrested with 29 ivory tusks was sentenced to 6 months imprisonment and payment of 55,000 USD as damages to the Ministry in charge 

of forests and wildlife (MINFOF) in October 2013; 

• In November 2013, two wildlife traffickers were sentenced to 4 years imprisonment for illegal hunting in the Korup National Park and for illegal possession 

and trafficking in elephant and chimpanzee products; 

• Two ‘‘white collar’’ wildlife traffickers are currently being prosecuted: a Vietnamese trafficker arrested with 10 ivory tusks and 60 kilograms of pangolin 

scales; and a council mayor, her son, and an accomplice are being prosecuted 

for ivory trafficking. 

Central African Republic: Dzanga-Sangha Protected Areas 

Since the military coups in Central African Republic (CAR) by a coalition of rebel 

groups called Seleka in March 2013, and the subsequent rise of a counter rebel 

group called Anti-Balaka, the situation in CAR remains chaotic and violent with 

daily attacks terrorizing civilians across the country. The United Nations estimates 

that, ‘‘more than 1 million people—roughly one-quarter of the total population— 

have been displaced or have fled the country. Thousands of people have been 

66 

killed—at least 2,000 since December alone—although no one knows the exact figure, which is likely much higher. Despite having the largest number of peacekeepers 

ever deployed to the country, the violence in CAR continues unabated.’’ 8

The Dzanga-Sangha protected area complex in Central African Republic (CAR) is 

home to the majority of that country’s remaining elephants. Prior to the March 2013 

coup, numerous poaching attempts were made by Sudanese militants targeting elephants in the Dzanga-Sangha Reserve. Gangs of armed horsemen attempted on at 

least two occasions to enter the protected area complex: the first attempt in the fall 

of 2011 was successfully repelled by the CAR army (not without casualties) after 

WWF and other partners on the ground alerted the government to the imminent 

threat; and in May 2012, WWF became aware of the presence of about three dozen 

Sudanese raiders in CAR and determined that they were moving toward the 

Dzanga-Sangha Reserve. At least 8–10 elephants were killed outside of the park, 

but operations by the CAR military again repelled the invaders and prevented them 

from entering the protected areas. Cameroon and the Republic of Congo coordinated 

in that effort, stationing troops along their borders with CAR to prevent the poachers from moving into their territory. 

Throughout 2011, not a single elephant poaching incident was detected in 

Dzanga-Sangha, the first such achievement in many years, due in large part to 

strong protection efforts developed over several years by WWF and its governmental 

and nongovernmental partners, including the support of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, through its 

Central African Regional Program for the Environment (CARPE). Another major 

factor was the cross-border cooperation developed between park rangers of the three 

bordering countries—CAR, Cameroon, and Republic of Congo—each of which contain a portion of the Sangha River Tri-national landscape (of which Dzanga-Sangha 

is the CAR portion). As part of these tri-national operations—a unique and innovative agreement between the three countries—park rangers engaged in regular communication, joint patrols, and joint law enforcement, ensuring information was rapidly shared and potential poachers could be pursued across borders. 

However, following the March 2013 coup and the collapse of government authority 

in CAR, the Dzanga-Sangha Protected Areas became vulnerable to armed incursions. Within days, trucks with armed ‘‘Seleka’’ rebels arrived in the small town of 

Bayanga, home to Dzanga-Sangha park headquarters, leading WWF to decide to 

evacuate its expatriate staff and volunteers. The park headquarters, including WWF 

offices and premises, were subsequently looted (including the stockpile of seized 

ivory), as were WWF’s office in the capital, Bangui. Seleka fighters took seven 

AK47, two ‘‘MASS 36’’ weapons, and an RPG7 from the park HQs and briefly took 

four rangers hostage before leaving the area. On April 6, 2013, 17 armed Sudanese 

Seleka arrived from Bangui in a pickup truck with Seleka insignia, drove out to 

Dzanga Bai, the world famous elephant clearing, ransacked the research camp and 

then opened fire on the elephants, killing 26 individuals, including 4 infants. They 

left the next day with their truck full of ivory. Park rangers and local WWF staff 

resumed work the day after, and a support team of security advisors arrived 5 days 

later to establish contact with the local Seleka group in order to seek their support 

in protecting Dzanga-Sangha and in stopping potential new groups of ‘‘Seleka’’ 

poachers. Since then, huge efforts have been made by the government, WWF and 

its partners, to continue to protect this World Heritage site from further incursions 

by armed groups searching for ivory. 

Despite repeated and ongoing threats, not a single elephant has been poached in 

Dzanga-Sangha since April 6, 2013, and numbers have since increased. This clearly 

demonstrates that elephants can be protected even under the most difficult of circumstances by a dedicated local ranger force as long as there is no complete breakdown of law and order, as happened in April 2013. 

The security situation in CAR remains fragile, however. Seleka groups have left 

the area but have been replaced by uncontrolled groups of ‘‘Anti-Balaka’’ fighters 

who, with support from members of the local community, have chased away all the 

Muslim inhabitants of the area, ransacking their houses and shops. Although the 

security situation remains worrying, calm is returning to Bayanga. This month, following an agreement established between the Ministers of Forestry and Defense 

with WWF, a small force of armed forces of the CAR Army from Nola together with 

elements of the police supported by park rangers is now based in Bayanga with the 

aim of disarming remaining anti-Balaka elements. 

Chad 

Fifty years ago the Republic of Chad was home to roughly 50,000 elephants; today 

the population is estimated to be around 1,500. In 2013, Chad initiated a National 

Elephant Protection Plan, which included the establishment of a National Elephant 

67 

Monitoring Centre to track and respond to threats to the country’s remaining elephants. In February 2014, President Deby, together with Heads of State from Botswana, Ethiopia, Gabon, and Tanzania pledged support for a new Elephant Protection Initiative at the U.K. Government’s London summit on the Illegal Wildlife 

Trade, which means these countries will refrain from any trade in ivory products 

for a minimum of 10 years. Also in February 2014, Chad’s President Deby Itno 

burned 1.1 tons of ivory stockpiled in the country over the past 8 years. The ivory 

burn showed Chad’s commitment to take the lead in the fight to protect Central 

Africa’s remaining savannah elephants. With this highest level of Government commitment, significant progress has been made on the ground, particularly in 

Zakouma National Park, where the tide finally may be turning and poaching is 

being brought under control by courageous local rangers with assistance from the 

Africa Parks Network. 

Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)—Garamba National Park 

Garamba National Park is located in northeastern DRC, on the border with South 

Sudan. For many years this park was supported by WWF to protect the last remaining population of northern white rhino, as well as the park’s elephants. The park 

was invaded many times by both sides during the long civil war in Sudan, and 

poaching by well-armed militias was common. The result was a steady decline in 

rhino populations from at least 500 in the 1970s to the last observation in the wild 

several years ago. As a result of the ongoing poaching, Northern White Rhino are 

now considered extinct in the wild. Garamba NP is still home to one of the few 

remaining viable elephant populations in DRC. An analysis of elephant trends in 

DRC shows that there are probably only a handful of remnant populations of elephants in that country numbering more than 500 individuals and that the country’s 

total elephant population is less than 20,000 and declining rapidly—down from an 

estimated 100,000 as recently as 50 years ago.9 Garamba NP is now comanaged by 

DRC’s national park agency and Africa Parks Network, a Dutch NGO. Due to their 

efforts and the improved security following the tentative peace in southern Sudan, 

the situation in the park saw a steady improvement in recent years and a reduction 

in poaching. This was true up until March 15, 2012, when a foreign helicopter 

entered DRC airspace and 22 elephants were killed by a marksman, firing from the 

helicopter and killing the elephants with a single shot to the top of the head. While 

the actual slaughter was not witnessed, a Russian manufactured Mi-17 troop-carrying helicopter was photographed in the vicinity at the same time. The helicopter 

was illegal and of unknown origin. 

Earlier this month, on May 13, Africa Parks Networks issued an urgent statement 

to update conservation colleagues on a new and serious elephant poaching onslaught 

in Garamba, noting that 33 elephants had been killed over the past 5 weeks, including 10 deaths alone on May 9. Two days later, on May 11, a gunfight broke out in 

the park when antipoaching teams encountered poaching camps, resulting in the 

deaths of three poachers. While the source of the poaching threat cannot be confirmed, there is reason to believe that the major thrust of the poaching activities 

are emanating from the heavily forested Azande Domaine de Chasse to the west of 

the park, which has been a traditional base for the Lords’ Resistance Army (LRA) 

over many years. As yet, it is not confirmed whether the current poaching onslaught 

emanates from the LRA, Sudanese poaching gangs, local Congolese poachers, or a 

combination of these. However, the extremely heightened level of poaching suggests 

organized groups of poachers are focusing new efforts on Garamba and its 

elephants. 

Gabon 

Gabon continues to be a victim of transborder ivory poaching, with Cameroonian 

ivory gangs entering northern Gabon and penetrating deep into the country in 

search for elephants. Ivory gangs are typically made up of 4 hunters, 6–10 porters 

and 1 ‘‘field leader’’ who ensures that all ivory effectively goes to the ‘‘organizer’’ of 

the expedition. These south Cameroonian ivory poaching groups are known to have 

widespread immunity in South Cameroon and support from corrupted local authorities. The inability to control cross-border incursions originating in Cameroon is a 

major reason why Gabon’s Minkebe National Park, located in northern Gabon on 

the border with Cameroon and RoC, has lost an estimated 11,000 elephants since 

2004. Another major weakness in Gabon is the inadequacy of current law, which 

has a maximum prison sentence of 6 months for ivory trafficking/elephant poaching. 

This is compared to a 3-year maximum sentence in Cameroon and 5-year maximum 

in RoC. 

68 

Republic of Congo (RoC) 

The same ivory poaching syndicates that operate in Minkebe are active in the 

northwestern forests of RoC. WWF and the RoC Ministry of Forests have signed a 

cooperation agreement that includes collaboration on antipoaching. In 2013, with 

WWF support, 37 people were arrested for elephant poaching related crimes and 

transferred to the provincial capital, Ouesso, for trial. However, none of these criminals was effectively condemned, and suspects were released after an average of 4 

months of temporary custody. In 2014, WWF supported the arrest of 12 ivory poaching criminals, 2 of whom received firm prison sentences of 2 years and 10 of whom 

received suspended prison sentences of 3 years. It is clear that the effective application of the law is being hampered by corruption and abuse of power by powerful 

elites involved in the trade. African Parks Network, which operates in Odzala NP 

through a management agreement with the government, arrested a major ivory trafficker who was sentenced in March 2014 to 5 years in prison, following wide interest 

in local and international press 10 combined with strong pressure from the diplomatic community, including the U.S. Ambassador and conservation organizations. 

African Parks has since been victim of a violent uprising in Mbomo town (HQ of 

the park) where their head of antipoaching was threatened and had to leave the 

country in early May. It is widely thought that the uprising has been instigated by 

interests linked to the ivory trade. 

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR U.S. ACTIONS IN CENTRAL AFRICA

The success in Dzanga-Sangha pre- and post-coup demonstrates that, in spite of 

persistent challenges in the region, Central African countries can combat the environmental and security threats posed by transnational wildlife crime when governments engage and prioritize the issue, when enough capacity is in place to respond 

effectively, and when countries cooperate on a regional and transboundary basis. 

Such regional cooperation can also help to foment stronger regional ties on other 

issues and reduce regional tensions, as evidenced by the fact that countries that 

were in conflict with each other not long ago have since engaged in joint security 

missions to protect their shared wildlife resources. 

The U.S. can help enhance antipoaching and antitrafficking efforts in this most 

acutely affected region in the following key ways: 

1. The U.S. Government, particularly through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service and USAID, should maintain and (where possible) enhance its support 

for urgently needed park and wildlife protection efforts in Central Africa, 

through; 

a. Support for park rangers and park guards and law enforcement training programs. Innovative protected areas comanagement initiatives, where 

NGO partners take on part of the management responsibility, while holding 

governments and NGOs accountable for management effectiveness, should 

be supported. 

b. Support forest and wildlife crime national assessments in Cameroon, 

CAR, DRC, and RoC, for example using the International Consortium to 

Combat Wildlife Crime (ICCWC) Toolkit as standardized methodology. 

c. Support the establishment and operations in Central African countries 

of national coordination units, bringing together different ministries and 

government agencies, that can conduct operations to dismantle criminal 

networks of wildlife traffickers. 

d. Based on training needs identified as a result of the national assessments, support ICCWC members and conservation NGOs to provide targeted trainings in intelligence, controlled deliveries, informant networks, 

judiciary followup and way to improve legal instruments. The training 

needs of police, wildlife and magistrate schools also need to be included in 

this assessment. 

e. Provide technical and financial support to informant networks, investigations, operations, and judiciary following of arrested wildlife traffickers, 

with an emphasis on operations in the forest elephant strongholds of the 

Dja-Minkebe-Odzala Tri-National (TRIDOM) landscape of Cameroon, RoC 

and Gabon, and the Tri-National de la Sangha (TNS) landscape of Cameroon, RoC and CAR. 

f. Support the establishment of a political dialogue between Central 

Africa and Asia, particularly China, through the Forum on Africa-China 

Cooperation (FOCAC), with a focusing on demand reduction and information exchange. Expand this discussion to other African Economic Communities with a focusing on breaking the illegal trade chain. 

69 

2. Increase the involvement of U.S. Embassies in the region related to wildlife 

crime policy and diplomacy, especially in cases of high-level traffickers, to create 

political momentum for governments to apply their sanction regimes to the full 

extent of the law. 

3. Evaluate trade sanction laws relative to African countries with weak enforcement of wildlife laws. 

4. Support the CAR sanction regime of the U.N. Security Council Resolution 

2127 (2013). This resolution targets individuals who are involved in the illicit 

exploitation of wildlife and wildlife products. 

5. Support the renewed U.N. Security Council Resolution S/RES/2136 (2014) 

on DRC’s sanctions regime, which targets individuals and entities illegally supporting armed groups through the illicit trade of natural resources, including 

wildlife and wildlife products, such as elephant ivory. 

On behalf of WWF and its Illegal Wildlife Trade Campaign, I thank you for your 

leadership on this issue and for the opportunity to provide testimony to the subcommittees. 

———————— 

End Notes 

1http://transcrime.gfintegrity.org/. 

2www.dni.gov/files/documents/WildlifelPoachinglWhitelPaperl2013.pdf. 3www.dni.gov/files/documents/WildlifelPoachinglWhitelPaperl2013.pdf. 4Maisels F, Strindberg S, Blake S, Wittemyer G, Hart J, et al. (2013) ‘‘Devastating Decline 

of Forest Elephants in Central Africa.’’ PLoS ONE 8(3):e59469. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone. 

0059469. 5 ‘‘Wildlife Poaching Threatens Economic, Security Priorities in Africa,’’ National Intelligence 

Council, 6 September 2013. 6https://www.google.cm/?gwslrd=cr&ei=Gb90U4zlEo7S4QSdpYGICA#q=Declaration+of+the 

+London+Conference. 7http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/environment/story/2012-03-16/cameroon-elephantspoaching/53564500/1. 8http://enoughproject.org/reports/behind-headlines-drivers-violence-central-african-republic. 

9http://www.bonoboincongo.com/2009/02/01/how-many-elephants-are-left-in-dr-congo/. 

10http://edition.cnn.com/2014/01/06/world/africa/congo-poacher-camp-bust/. 

Æ